


/ 



gitfttattj oi ®on$xt$$. 



X3 \ 7 T 
^pAjf... lS 5 

<@<J l -lfUy/ l t ^=A&. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



v^*v 






THE BIBLE, 

CONFESSION OF FAITH, 
AND COMMON SENSE: 

BEING A SERIES OP 

DIALOGUES BETWEEN A PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND 

x A YOUNG CONVERT, 

ON SOME PROMINENT AND MOST COMMONLY DISPUTED 

DOCTRINES OF THE 

CONFESSION OF FAITH 

OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH J 
TO WHICH ARE ADDED,' 

FIVE DIALOGUES 

ON THE GROUNDS AND CAUSES OF THE DIVISION OF 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN 

1837 & 1838. 



BY WII^LIAM D. SMITH. 




SPRINGFIELD, OHIO : 

¥EtNTXD At THE OFFICE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN Of THE WEST* 
1844. 



. a 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, by William D. Smith, 
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio, 



H 



f 



PREFACE. 

Is appearing before the public as an author, in these days of 
book making, the writer of the following pages has no apology to 
offer, but, simply 'a statement of facts. When he commenced 
writing, he had no intention of any thing more than some articles 
for the "Presbyterian of the "West," in which most of the work 
has appeared, in successive numbers. But, before the articles on 
u Decrees" and "Election" were completed, urgent requests were 
received from different quarters, to have them embodied in some 
permanent form. At the same time requests were made, that the 
writer should go through all the most commonly controverted 
points of the Confession of Faith. The field was thus enlarged 
beyond the original design ; and much encouragement to proceed 
was afforded, by the reception of numerous testimonials as to the 
utility of the articles, in relieving the minds of those who were 
in doubts, and establishing those who were wavering. 

When the first seven dialogues were completed, they were 
embodied in a cheap pamphlet ; and though an edition of near two 
thousand was issued, it was found altogether inadequate to supply 
the demand. And as the numbers were farther continued in the 
Presbyterian of the West, calls were received from many readers, 
to have them all embodied together. To supply this demand, and 
to serve the cause of truth as far as possible by the work, it is now 
issued in its present form. 

It is, perhaps, proper to add, that for some of the arguments used 
in the fifth dialogue, the writer is indebted to a published sermon, 
entitled, "The unpopular doctrines of the Bible," by Kev. A. G. 
Fair child, D. D., of Pennsylvania. 



INDEX 

DIALOGUE I. 
Introduction, ---.----- 9 

DIALOGUE II. 
Misrepresentations of Calvinism, .... - 13 

DIALOGUE III. 
Decrees of God, - - 23 

DIALOGUE IV. 
Decrees of God continued, - - - - - - 31 

DIALOGUE V. 
Election, - 37 

DIALOGUE VI. 
Election continued, - -46 

DIALOGUE VII. 
Original Sin, 56 

DIALOGUE VIII. 
Free Grace, .--64 

DIALOGUE IX. 
Good Works, 75 

DIALOGUE X. 
Inability, 84 



VI INDEX. 

DIALOGUE XI. 
Free Will, 95 

DIALOGUE XII. 
:tual Calling, 102 

DIALOGUE XIII. 
Sinless Perfection, -.-. ... 110 

DIALOGUE XIY. 
Sinless Perfection continued, - 117 

DIALOGUE XV. 
Perseverance. -- 126 

DIALOGUE XVI. 

Perseverance continued, - - - - - - 135 

DIALOGUE XVII. 
Admission to the Church, 145 

DIALOGUE XVIII. 
Church Government, 153 

DIALOGUE XIX. 
Bible Republicanism, - 160 

DIALOGUE XX. 
Bible Presbyterianism, 167 

DIALOGUE XXI. 
Primitive Presbyterianism, - - - - - - 175 

DIALOGUE XXII. 
Presbyterianism of the Reformers, 183 



INDEX. Vli 

PART II. 

DIALOGUE I. 
Difference in Doctrine, 191 

DIALOGUE II. 
Difference in Doctrine continued, - 200 

DIALOGUE III. 

Difference in Measures, - - ~ - - - * 211 

DIALOGUE IV. 
Doings of 1837, ~ 224 

DIALOGUE V. 
The Division, .-.--.-.... 23? 



THE BIBLE, 

CONFESSION OF FAITH, 

AND COMMON SENSE. 



DIALOGUE I. 



INTRODUCTION . 



Convert. — I have called this evening to converse 
with you on a subject, which has of late occupied 
my mind very much. I have recently, as you are 
aware, through divine grace, had my mind very se- 
riously exercised on the subject of religion, and now 
have hopes that I have experienced a gracious 
change, and have become a child of God — conse- 
quently, I have felt desirous of connecting myself 
with some religious society. As it was through the 
instrumentality of Presbyterian Ministers I was 
first led to see my lost condition, and ultimately to 
cast myself on Christ for salvation, I had a prefer- 
ence for that Church. But, I have been told, you 
believe such dreadful doctrines, that I have been led 
to doubt what would be duty. 

Minister. — What are the dreadful doctrines of 
our Church, which make you hesitate ? 

Con. — I have been told, you believe that God, by 
an unchangeable and arbitrary decree, has divided 
the human family into two classes, elect and repro- 
2 



10 INTRODUCTION, 

bate — that 4 the elect, he has,, from eternity, decreed 
to save, let them live as they may. No matter how 
ungodly, or careless they are, they will all certainly 
be saved. But, the reprobate class, are created for 
the purpose only of eternal damnation, which God 
has so arbitrarily decreed,, that no matter how ear- 
nestly and diligently they may seek salvation, they 
must be lost. These, with a great many other simi- 
lar doctrines, such as infant damnation, &c, I have 
been told,, are the doctrines of the Presbyterian 
Church, to which I must give my assent before I 
could be admitted as a member. 

Min. — Did any member of our Church give yoa 
this representation of our faith and practice ? 

Con. — No* Sir. I had them from a neighbor, a. 
member of the Methodist Church, who has mani- 
fested considerable interest in my case, and express- 
ed his regret that I woultf even attend a Church 
where such doctrines are held and taught. 

Min.- — Did you ever hear such doctrines advanced: 
in our Churchy by any one? 

Con.— No,. Sir, 

Min. — I believe no one has ever heard such doc- 
trines advanced by any Presbyterian ; and I have of- 
ten been surprised at the pertinacity with which 
such misrepresentations are insisted upon, as being 
the doctrines of our Church. Indeed, I have rare- 
ly heard, or seen our doetrines stated in their true 
light, by any of our opponents. They uniformly 
make some gross misrepresentation of them, such as 
you mention, and then hold up to odium and ridi- 
cule, the creatures of their own misguided, or malig- 
nant fancies. It reminds me very forcibly of the 
infidel, who, in order to show his malignant hatred 
of the Bible, sewed it up in the skin ©f an -animal,, 



iJfTfcODUCTiON. 11 

Und endeavored to set his dogs on it. So our doc- 
trines are always dressed up in something that does 
not belong to them, before any attempt is made to 
excite odium against them. These misrepresenta- 
tions, moreover, are often made under circumstances 
which preclude all excuse on the ground of igno- 
rance. A few w r eeks ago, in preaching a sermon 
which involved the doctrine of innate depravity, I 
took occasion to mention the ground on which we 
believed in the salvation of infants — that it was not 
because we believed them holy, and without sin ; 
but, because we believed they were sinful* and would 
be saved, through the imputed righteousness of 
Christ. A few days afterwards* it was told with a 
great deal of affected, pious horror, that I had preach^ 
ed the awful doctrine of infant damnation. 

Gon. — -Such things I know have been done, and 
this led me> at first, to suspect that the representa- 
tions I had of your doctrines were not true; but 
my neighbor glave me a book, which professes to 
give extracts from your standard writers, and the 
Confession of Faith of your Church, in which I find 
many things to confirm his statements. It was this 
that staggered me. I could not think that any one 
would deliberately publish falsehoods; and yet I 
could hardly believe* that such dreadful doctrines 
as I find there stated, were in reality the doctrines 
of your Church; and* as I had not access to the 
writings from which these extracts are said to be 
taken, and as I wish to make up my mind deliber- 
ately on the subject, and act intelligently, I wished 
to make known to you my difficulties, having confi- 
dence that they would be met and treated in a spir- 
it of candor and truth. 

Min.—- 1 thank you for your confidence? and hope 



12 



INTRODUCTION, 



you will find it has not been misplaced. What is 
the book that your neighbor gave you, in which you 
have found those doctrines that you say have been 
charged upon us? 

Can. — It is a volume of "Doctrinal Tracts, pub- 
lished by order of the General Conference" of the 
Methodist Church. 

Min. — Are you at liberty to let me examine it? 

Con. — I presume so. I will hand it to you, and 
will call again to-morrow evening. 

Min. — I will examine it; and, if I find our doc- 
trines truly stated, I hope I shall be able to show 
very clearly, that they are the doctrines of the Bi- 
ble, and of common sense. I wish you to under- 
stand, however, that we are not responsible for every 
expression that may be found in the writings of any 
individual, though we may approve of his works in 
the main; and he may be classed among our stan- 
dard writers. It is only our Confession of Faith 
that we adopt as a ivhoie, as containing the system 
of doctrines taught in the Bible. 

Con. — Some of the extracts are from the Confes- 
sion of Faith of your Church. 

Min. — Very well; all such I am bound to defend, 
and hope to be able to show you, that the Bible, the 
Confession of Faith, and Common Sense, are in per- 
fect accordance with each other, 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 13 

DIALOGUE II. 

MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 

Convert. — Since I saw you, I have been examin- 
ing, to some extent, the Confession of Faith of your 
Church, and find it corresponds with my own views 
of doctrine in the main, though I find some things 
to which I cannot fully subscribe. But, when I look 
at the Scriptural references, I am forced to believe 
they are taught in the Bible, and am constrained to 
leave them, as things I cannot understand. I do 
not, however, find in it, except in one or two 
places, any thing like the representations I have had 
of it from others, or the dreadful doctrines quoted 
in the book I gave you. Have you examined it ? 

Minister. — I have given it a cursory examination, 
tand have been very much surprised that such misrep- 
resentations, and dishonest and even false quotations, 
should be put forth and palmed upon the commu- 
nity, under the sanction and by the authority of a 
Church, that has the name of being evangelical. 
Had it been done by Universalists, or Infidels, it 
would hardly have been thought worthy of notice : 
but, when I see it is "published by order of the Gen- 
eral Conference" of the Methodist Church, I cannot 
but regret, that that body would sanction, by their 
authority and influence, the publication and wide 
circulation of a work, characterized by such an en- 
tire want of candor and honesty, and containing so 
.many palpable misstatements. 

Con. — Are any of its quotations incorrect? 

Min> — There is scarcely a single quotation cor- 



14 MISREPRESENTATIONS OP CALVINISM. 

rect, so far as I have been able to examine it. The 
first is a quotation from our Confession of Faith, 
chapter 3, which I find on page 8. It pretends to 
quote the language of the Confession, but it gives 
nothing more than a small part of the language, so 
garbled as to give it an entirely different meaning. 
The quotation is as follows; "God from all eternity 
did unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." 
Now, let me read the language of the Confession : 
"God from all eternity did, by the most wise and ho- 
ly counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet sa> as thereby 
neither is God the author of sin ; nor is violence of- 
fered to tlie will of the creatures ; nor is the liberty 
or contingency of second causes taken away, but rath- 
er established" I will,, at another time, endeavor 
to show you, that this is the doctrine of the Bible, 
and of common sense. At present, it will be suffi- 
cient to say, that, as you perceive, whilst it asserts 
God's wise and holy purpose respecting "all things," 
yet it says, also, that he has "so" ordained respect- 
ing them, that "he is not the author of sin;" that it 
does not offer any "violeAce" or constraint "to the 
will of the creatures," and m a way that "establish- 
es" rather than takes away, "the liberty, or contin- 
gency, of second causes*" So, you perceive, that 
when all these saving clauses are taken away from 
the language of the Confession, it has a meaning en- 
tirely different from that which is intended. 

Con. — I perceive the quotation is exceedingly un- 
fair and dishonest, 

Min. — On the same page is another, equally un- 
fair, respecting: the finally impenitent. It reads 
thus: "The rest of mankind God was pleased, for 
the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures „ 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 15 

to pass by and ordain them to dishonor and wrath,-' 
Now, hear the language of the Confession : "The 
rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the 
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex- 
tendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the 
glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to 
pass by and ordain them to dishonor and wrath fox 
their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." Yoa 
perceive that here, also, the language of the Confes- 
sion is so garbled, as to give it a different meaning 
altogether. Whilst it asserts that God "passes by v? 
the finally impenitent part of mankind, (that is, he 
did not determine to save them,) and "ordains them 
to dishonor and wrath," yet it is "for their sin" and 
in a manner that will redound "to the praise of his 
glorious justice " But, all this is purposely left out 
of the quotation, with the design of making it teach 
the dreadful doctrine of eternal reprobation — thai 
God damns man from all eternity, without any ref- 
erence to his sin, or any reason except his arbitrary 
decree. 

Con. — It is surprising that such things should be 
published as true, and circulated with so much con- 
fidence. The neighbor who gave me the book, said, 
that I might depend on it as giving, truly, the views 
of Presbyterians, and that he had the best opportu- 
nity of knowing what their views were, as he was 
brought up under Presbyterian instruction, and had 
been taught the Catechism in f his youth. 

Min. — As an evidence that he was either unac- 
quainted with the Catechism, or with the contents 
of the book, I will refer you to another quotation, 
which I find on page 195. It professes to be from 
the "Assembly's Catechism, chapter 5." Now, as 
you say you have been looking a little at the Con- 






MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 



us to one 01 their,. 



>n of Faith, you have perceived that the Cate- 

I divided into chapters: and, where to 

find thejift/i chapter of the Assembly's Catechism, 

s ill have to ask "thi Gi i ." b} 

s e order the book has been published, who should 

known, at least, that there were chapters in 

.. before 

But you will, pei 

] = not only nt 
: language a 
)ilows: ''The Aim 
: :seif to the first fall, a 
Xow. there 
_ like it, any whei 
:s there any thing 
fiord the leas: groi 
- memous as this is 
vhmh it standi 
rd. "A Dialog. : \ 
F 

' rl'J : : . Z'-i 

.notation is give:;, n: 
I es, that Gcd'- a 
lling mm ; ; 

.e m 

"Assembly's Cam 

■ of the C; 

Con. — B mm;:, in some other 

-ion. to give a semblance of truth 
to the quotation ? 

Min. — Chapter 5, section 4. of the Confession, 
ks of God's providence : "The Almighty 
visdorn, and infinite goc 



>ted. T\ 



in either oi our Catech: 
ny where in the Confes 
d for a sentiment so gr 
aade to be, in the cor 

It is in Tract number S 
reen a Predestinarian 
:he Predestinarian is repre- 

langimme of Calvinists, to 
men to sin; and, then, this 
prove mat our Catem. 
;igh:v rower is exerted : 

On ; ; ge 194, is another 
.inn momming to : 

cl qrter 3." But the 
echism will be as difficult to 



rl 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 17 

of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, 
that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all 
other sins of angels and men ; and that, not by a 
bare permission, but such [a permission] as hath 
joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, 
and otherwise ordering and governing them, in a 
manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends, yet so 
as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the 
creature, and not from God, who, being most holy 
and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author, or 
approver of sin" 

Now, if this was the passage that was intended 
by the quotation, it is equally as dishonest as if they 
had made the Confession speak the language of Ar- 
istotle. The passage, as you perceive, speaks of the 
"Almighty power" of God, as exercised in his uni- 
versal providence, restraining and governing the 
sinful actions "of men and angels," and overruling 
them for good, by a "wise and powerful bounding." 
And who but an Atheist will deny this? It is so 
plain a doctrine of common sense, that I need hard- 
ly stay to reason about it; and it is found on almost 
every page of the Bible. The wickedness of Satan 
in seducing our first parents, as w r ell as their sin, 
have been, by his "Almighty power, unsearchable 
wisdom and goodness," overruled for good, and "gov- 
erned to his own holy ends." So, also, the wicked- 
ness of Satan in the case of Job, as well as the sins 
of the betrayer and crucifiers of the Savior. 

Con. — It is certainly a plain dictate of common 
sense, as well as of the Bible, that God overrules all 
things, and governs the wicked, as well as the 
righteous. The Psalmist says, in one place, that he 
makes the wrath of man to praise him, and the re- 
mainder of their wrath he restrains. And I was 



IS MISREPRESENT ATSON3 OP CALVINISM. 

struck with the conciseness and beauty of the lan- 
guage of the Confession, in stating this important 
doctrine. But, that any one would so garble the 
passage, as to make it teach the doctrine that God's 
■"Almighty power" is exerted in compelling men to 
sin, is very strange. But, I observed^ that the book 
gives quotations from Calvin, Twisse, Zuinglius, 
Toplady, and others. Are these quotations equally 
incorrect? 

Min. — I have not examined any of the writers 
quoted, but Calvin and Toplady. But, I find the 
quotations from these, are of the same character with 
those from the Confession of Faith. On page 8, I 
rind a reference to Calvin's Institutes, chapter 21, 
section 1. Calvin's Institutes consist of four books, 
and these books are divided into chaffers and sections. 
As the particular book is not referred to in the quo- 
tation, I suppose it must be the third that is intend- 
ed, as none of the others contain twenty-one chap- 
ters. I have examined chapter 21, section 1, of 
book 3, and can find no such language as is quoted, 
nor any thing like it. And, lest there might be a 
typographical error in the reference, I examined 
sections 2 and 3, of the same chapter, and section 1 
of every other chapter in the whole work, and can 
find nothing of the kind. On page 97, there is ano- 
ther reference to Calvin's Institutes, chap. 18, sec. I. 
As the particular book is not referred to, I have ex- 
amined chap. 18, and sec. 1, of books 1, 3, and 4, 
the only ones containing 18 chapters, and can find 
no language of the kind; and am led to believe, that 
there is no such language in the whole work. The 
quotation is as follows : "I say, that by the ordina- 
tion and will of God, Adam fell. God would have 
him to fall, Man is blinded by the will and com- 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 19 

miandment of God. We refer the causes of hard- 
ening us, to God. The highest, or remote causos of 
hardening, is the will of God." Book 1st, chap. 18, 
treats of the manner in which "God uses the agen- 
cy of the impious, and inclines their minds to exe- 
cute his judgments, yet without the least stain to 
his perfect purity" — and, though Calvin uses some 
expressions that I would prefer to have expressed dif- 
ferently, yet no such language as the quotation, or 
any thing bearing its import, is to be found. 

Con. — Could you find none of the quotations re^ 
ferred to? 

Min. — On page 194, I find a reference to "Cal- 
vin's Institutes, Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 3," in the 
following language: "No thing is more absurd than 
to think any thing at all is done but by the ordina- 
tion of God." In the place cited, there is no such 
language or any thing like it; but, in sec. 8, I find 
Calvin speaking of Augustine, who, he says, "shows 
that men are subject to the Providence of God, and 
governed by it, assuming as a principle, that nothing 
could be more absurd than for any thing to happen 
independently of the ordination of God, because it 
would happen at random." I presume this was the 
passage intended, but you perceive the exceeding 
unfairness of the quotation. Calvin is speaking of 
God's Providence, which overrules and directs eve- 
ry thing, and quotes approvingly the sentiments of 
Augustine, that nothing happens at random, as if 
God had no purpose respecting it. But the quota- 
tion makes Calvin teach, that God has so ordained 
all things, that he is the author of sin. 

Another quotation, equally unfair, I find on the 
same page; and here, for the first time, I find the 
reference correct, though the language is garbled 



20 MISREPRESENTATIONS OF CALVINISM. 

and misrepresented. It is in Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 
3. The quotation is as follows: "Every action and 
motion of every creature, is so governed by the hid- 
den counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass 
but what was ordained by him." This is made to 
apply to the actions of men, which would be unfair, 
even if the language were quoted correctly; for 
Calvin is speaking of God's Providence over his ir- 
rational creatures, and arguing against "infidels who 
transfer the government of the world from God to 
the stars;" and adds, as encouragement to Chris- 
tians under God's government, "that in the crea- 
tures there is no erratic power, action or motion, but 
that they are so governed by the secret counsel of 
God, that nothing can happen but what is subject 
to his knowledge and decreed by his will." So you 
perceive, that the language is not only widely dif- 
ferent from the quotation, but it is on another sub- 
ject altogether. On page 176, I find a reference to 
Toplady's work on Predestination, and the follow- 
ing sentiment given as his : "The sum of all is this: 
One in twenty, suppose of mankind, are elected: 
nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall 
be saved, do what they will. The reprobate shall 
be damned, do what they can." Then follow 7 some 
garbled extracts from Mr. Toplady's work; and an at- 
tempt is made, by distorting their meaning, to prove, 
by inference, that such is his meaning. I need 
scarcely tell you, that neither 3Ir. Toplady, nor any 
other Calvinistic writer, ever penned such a senti- 
ment. It is a gratuitous forgery. The history of it 
is this : 3Ir. Toplady published a work on Predes- 
tination, which, though it contained unguarded ex- 
pressions, proved the doctrine so clearly, that Ar- 
rninians felt it was dangerous to their system. To 



MISREPRESENTATIONS OP CALVINISM'. 21 

bring it into disrepute, Mr. John Wesley published 
a pretended abridgment of it, which was, in fact, 
only a gross caricature of the work; and yet he put 
Mr. Toplady's name to it, as if it was the genuine 
work. To his garbled extracts, he added interpola- 
tions of his own, to give them a different meaning, 
and then closed the whole with the following senti- 
ment: "The sum of all is this : One in twenty, sup- 
pose of mankind, are elected: nineteen in twenty 
are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what 
they will: the reprobate shall be damned, do what 
they can. Reader, believe this, or be damned. 
AVitness my hand. A. — T." — Every word of this 
was a forgery of his own. And yet, he affixes the 
initials of Mr. Toplady's name, with a " Witness my 
hand" to make his readers believe that it was, in 
reality, Mr. T's. language. You will find this, with 
other facts in the case, stated at large, in Mr. Top- 
lady's letter to Mr. Wesley on the subject, appended 
to a later edition of his work. Such facts need no 
comment. The tract in which I find the sentiment 
again ascribed to Mr. Toplady, was evidently writ- 
ten with a design to screen Mr. Wesley. But, such 
things cannot be excused, in any w r ay, to hide their 
dishonesty, when the facts are known. 

Con. — Is this the character of the quotations gen- 
erally? 

Min. — So far as I have examined, they are gen- 
erally of this character. I have marked ten or 
twelve more, which you can examine for yourself, 
so far as Calvin's Institutes are concerned. I have 
not, at present, an opportunity of examining the oth- 
er works quoted; but, from the character of their 
authors, I must believe they are as grossly misrepre- 
sented as Calvin, Toplady, and the Confession of 



22 MIS&EFBLESENTATiONS OF CALVINISM. 

Faith.* But, be that as it may, we are not respon- 
sible for the opinions of either of them, and are 
therefore not bound to defend them. But, as it res- 
pects the Confession of Faith, the case is different. 
For all its doctrines we are responsible. 

Con. — I would be glad if my mind could be re- 
lieved of the difficulty under which it labors, res- 
pecting some of those doctrines. I am at a loss to 
reconcile the expressions, that "God has foreordain- 
ed whatsoever comes to pass/' and "yet so that he 
is not the author of sin," &c. 

Min. — I think them perfectly reconcileable on 

* What I have said of the u Doctrinal Tracts," has occasion- 
ed some surprise. Some have even doubted its truth. They 
think it hardly possible, that the Methodist Church would be 
guilty of publishing such misrepresentations. If the reader 
will take the trouble to examine the "Doctrinal Tracts/' (the 
edition published in New-York in 1&36,) he will find the quo- 
tations true to the letter. And he will find, also, that the one 
half of their enormities have not been exposed. Witness the 
following, on page 169 : "This doctrine (Predestination) repre- 
sents our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of 
God the Father, full of grace and truth, as a hypocrite, a deceiver 
of the people , a man void of common sincerity." And page 170 : 
k -It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as loth 
more false, more cruel, and more unjust.'''' And again, page 172 : 
•"One might say to our adversary, the devil, 'thou fool, why dost 
thou roar about any longer ? Thy lying in wait for souls, is ae 
needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not that 
God hath taken the work out of thy hands ? And that he doth it- 
more effectually? * * Thou temptest ; Heforceth us to be damn- 
ed. * *'* Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the 
dtstroyer of souls, the murderer of men?' 1 " &c. And page 173 :• 
4i how would the enemy of God and man, rejoice to hear that 
these things are so ! * * * How would he lift up his voice and 
say* * * * 'Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly 
perish. *'* * Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent Almighty 
tyrant. * * * Sing O hell. * * * Let all the sons of hell 
liout for joy,' " &e. Perhaps I owe an apology to the reader 
fox quoting such language. 



DECREES OF GOD. 23 

the plain principles of common sense. But we had 
perhaps better defer this subject until to-morrow 
evening. 

Can. — I will be glad to embrace the opportunity, 
at any time you may have leisure. 



DIALOGUE IIL 

DECREES OF GOD. 

Minister. — I think you mentioned, in our last 
conversation, that on>e difficulty under which your 
mind labored respecting the doctrine of Divine de- 
crees, was, that it necessarily made God the author 
of sin. 

Convert.— Yes, Sir. It seems to me, that if God 
has, "from all eternity, foreordained whatsoever 
comes to pass," without any exception, how can it 
be that he is not the author of all evil as well as good? 

Min. — The doctrine is not without its difficulties ; 
and, though some of these may be removed by a 
proper understanding of it, yet when we attempt to- 
follow it out in all its consequences, as with every 
thing else revealed respecting Jehovah, we come to 
a point at which we are compelled to stop ; and, we 
must, with the docility of children, receive what is 
told us, though w r e cannot comprehend it. The doc- 
trine, however, to a certain extent, is very simple 
and plain. All admit that God is the author and dis- 
poser of all things. Nothing takes place except by 
his agency or permission ; or, in other words, n«*h- 



24 DECREES OF GOD. 

ing can take place, except what he does, or permits 
to be done. The Bible represents his overruling 
Providence as extending to all events, however 
small; the fall of a sparrow, or the loss of a hair. 
He rules the wicked, as well as the righteous ; and 
his restraining hand is over all in such a way, that 
it does not infringe upon human liberty. If this 
were not the case, you perceive, it w<ould be useless 
for us to pray that God would restrain the wicked 
in their designs against the Church, or in any other 
respect; and, indeed, it would close the mouth of 
prayer almost entirely, to believe God either could 
not, or did not govern all things, both great and 
small. Now, though sin is hateful to God, it con- 
stantly takes place in his government ; and, it is 
Atheism to say, he could not prevent it; for, he is 
not God, if he cannot govern the world. We must, 
therefore, conclude, he permits it, for reasons un- 
known to us. 

Con. — That is very plain. To say he could not 
govern and overrule all things, according to his plea- 
sure, would deprive him of his character as infinite ; 
and, to say that he refuses to do it, and leaves the 
world to manage itself, is not only contrary to the 
Bible, but is foolishly absurd. But, what connec- 
tion has this with the doctrine of decrees? 

Min. — God, in his providence, fulfills his decrees: 
or, as the Bible expresses it, "what his hand and 
counsel determined before to be done" — Acts 4: 28. 
Hence, our Catechism says, that "God executeth 
his decrees in the works of creation and providence." 
His providence and decrees are co-extensive; that 
is, what he does, or permits to be done, in his prov- 
idence, he always designed to do or permit in his 
purpose. This is as plain a proposition as the other. 



DECREES OF GOD. 



25 



and equally consistent with common sense. When 
he created the world, he of course did it from de- 
sign; that is, he did not do it by chance, but he de- 
signed to make the world just as he did make it. 
Now, when did he form that design? Did he form 
the design of creating the world, just at the time it 
was done, or had he it before? If the design was 
formed then, he is subject to form new designs, and 
is therefore changeable; for, it must have been, 
that he saw some reason for creating a world which 
he did not see before, or some motive operated which 
did not before. He must have become more wise, 
more mighty, or benevolent, or have seen Something 
in a new light, which induced him to adopt the new 
design of creating the world. But this, you per- 
ceive, is blasphemy; for, it would make him both 
finite and changeable. Then, we are driven to the 
conclusion, that he must have had the d.esign from 
eternity. Now, the same reasoning, applied to any 
thing he does in creation or providence, will issue in 
the very same conclusions. If he convert a sinner 
to-day, he does it from design. But, when did he 
form the design? Here, you perceive, we run into 
the same necessity of concluding that the design was 
eternal, as in the case of the creation of the world. 
The same is true with regard to what he permiz;-, 
He permitted our first parents to fall. He permit- 
ted Judas to betray the Savior. He permitted per- 
secution to arise in the Church, under Popery, &c. 
Did he not know our first parents would fall, when 
he created them? This, all admit. If, then, he 
knew they would fall, he determined to permit them ; 
that is, he determined not to prevent them ; and, it 
is in this sense, I use the term permission. Then., if 
he knew from eternity they would fall, he deter* 
3 



26 DECREES OF GOD, 

mined, or decreed, from eternity, to permit then. 
80 with all sin which he sees fit not to prevent. He 
knew from eternity it would take place, and decreed 
from eternity to permit it. So we must either ad- 
mit that what God does or permits to be done, he 
always designed to do or permit — or, deny the per- 
fections of his character. 

Con. — But, is this permission a decree? 

Min. — It is as much a decree as any thing else. 
To decree, is nothing more than to determine be- 
forehand, or to foreordain; and, to resolve, or de- 
termine to do or permit any thing, is to decree it 
in that sense. The word decree, in the sense in 
which it is used in the Bible, and theology, signifies, 
to determine the certainty of a future event, by posi- 
tive agency or permission. That which is deter- 
mined to be done, is decreed; and that which is de- 
termined to be permitted, is also decreed, when there 
is power to prevent it; because, when it is known, 
certainly, that it will be done unless prevented, and 
there is a determination not to prevent it, it is ren- 
dered as certain as if it were decreed to be done by 
positive agency. In the one case, the event is ren- 
dered certain by agency put forth; and, in the other 
case, it is rendered equally certain by agency with- 
held. It is an unchangeable decree in both cases. 
The sins of Judas, and the crucifiers of the Savioiv 
were as unchangeably decreed, permissively, as the 
coming of the Savior into the world was decreed 
positively. From this you can perceive the consist- 
ency of the Confession of Faith with common sense, 
when it says, that "God from all eternity did, 
by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will 
freely and unchangeably, foreordain whatsoever 
comes to pass," &c. You perceive, also, that this is 



DECREES OF GOD. 27 

clearly reconcilable with the following sentiment, 
that "he is not the author of sin," &c. 

Con. — Still, however, as God is the author of all, 
and the originator of the plan, does it not still make 
him the author of sin, in a certain sense? 

Min. — His being the author of the plan, does not 
make him the author of the sin that enters into his 
plan, though he saw fit not to prevent it. Perhaps 
I can make this point, and some others connected 
with it, more plain by an illustration. 

Suppose, to yourself, a neighbor who keeps a dis- 
tillery or dram shop, which is a nuisance to all around 
— neighbors collecting, drinking, and fighting on the 
Sabbath, with consequent misery and distress in 
families, &c. Suppose, further, that I am endowed 
with certain foreknowledge, and can see, with ab- 
solute certainty, a chain of events, in connection with 
a plan of operations which I have in view, for the 
good of that neighborhood. I see that by preaching 
there, I will be made the instrument of the conver- 
sion, and consequent reformation, of the owner of 
the distillery, and I therefore determine to go Now, 
in so doing, I positively decree the reformation of 
the man; that is, I determine to do what renders 
his reformation certain, and I fulfill my decree by 
positive agency. But, in looking a little farther in 
the chain of events, I discover, with the same abso- 
lute certainty, that his drunken customers will be 
filled with wrath, and much sin will be committed, 
in venting their malice upon him and me. The)' 
will not only curse and blaspheme God and religion, 
but they will even burn his house, and attempt to 
burn mine. Now, you perceive, that this evil, which 
enters into my plan, is not chargeable upon me at 
•all, though I am the author of the plan which, in it* 



28 



DECREES OF GOD. 



operations, I know will produce it. Hence, it is 
plain, that any intelligent being may set on foot a 
plan, and carry it out, in which he knows, with ab- 
solute certainty, that evil will enter, and yet he is 
not the author of the evil, or chargeable with it in 
any way. 

Con. — But, if he have power to prevent the evil, 
and do not, is he not chargeable with it? 

Mi n. — In the case supposed, if I had power to 
prevent the evil, yet I might see fit to permit it, and 
yet not be chargeable with it. Suppose I had pow- 
er to prevent those wicked men from burning their 
neighbor's house; yet, in looking a little farther in 
the chain of events, I discover, that if they be per- 
mitted, they will take his life ; and, I see, moreover, 
that if his life be spared, he will now be as notorious 
for good as he was for evil, and will prove a rich 
blessing to the neighborhood and society. I, there- 
fore, permit them to do as they please. They, con- 
sequently, burn his house, and come with the de- 
sign of burning mine; but, I have things arranged* 
to have them arrested and confined in prison, where- 
by they will be prevented from taking their neigh- 
bor's life, which they otherwise would, and he ds 
spared for the great good of the community. There- 
fore, upon the whole plan, I determine to act; and, 
in so doing, I positively decree the reformation of 
that man, and the consequent good; and, I permis- 
sively decree the wicked actions of the others; yet, 
it is very plain, that I am not, in any way, chargea- 
ble with their sins. Now, in one or other of these 
ways, God "has foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass." This, as you know, is the simple language 
of our Catechism, which has been so long and loudly 
proclaimed as the doctrine of fatality; worse than 
infidelity; originating in hell, &c. 



DFXREES OF GOD. 29 

Con. — The distinction you make between positive 
and permissive decrees, relieves my mind entirely; 
and, I do not see how any thing else can be believed 
by any one who believes in the sovereignty of God, 
as the author and ruler of the universe. And, if this 
be the doctrine of your Church on the subject, it is 
surprising that such gross misrepresentations of it 
are so industriously circulated, by professing Chris- 
tians. They surely do not understand it. Is this 
view of it given plainly in the Confession of Faith ? 

Mill. — I have never seen it stated in any other 
work so clearly and concisely, as it is in the Confes- 
sion of Faith. Chap. 3, sec. 1, which asserts the 
doctrine of decrees, says expressly, that God has 
"so" decreed all things, that he is "not the author 
of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea- 
tures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second 
causes taken away, but rather established" Chap- 
ter 5, section 4, thus speaks : "The Almighty pow- 
er, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of 
God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, 
that it extendeth itself to the first fall, and all other 
sins of men and angels, and that, not by a bare per- 
mission, but such [a permission,] as hath joined with 
it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise 
ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dis- 
pensation, to his own holy ends, yet so as the sinful- 
ness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and 
not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, 
neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin" 
Here, you perceive, the view I gave, is stated in as 
plain language as could be used. But, further, chap. 
6, sec. 1 : "Our first parents, being seduced by the 
subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating 
the forbidden fruit. This, their sin, God ivas pleased, 



30 DECREES OF GOD. 

according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, ha- 
ving purposed to order it for his own glory." So,, 
you perceive, this plain common sense doctrine, is 
the doctrine of the Confession of Faith. It now 
only remains for me to show, that it is the doctrine 
of the Bible : for, however reasonable it may appear, 
if it be not found there, I will give it up. 

Con. — I will be glad to avail myself of further in- 
struction on this point, at another time, I have an 
en^acrement this evening, that renders it necessarv 
for me to deny myself the pleasure now. Before I 
leave, however, there is one objection which has aris- 
en in my mind, which I would be glad to have re- 
moved. If God permitted evil to come into the 
world, in order that he might overrule it for good, 
is not that doing evil that good may come ? 

Min. — I have not said, nor does either the Confes- 
sion of Faith, or the Bible say, that God permitted 
evil in order to overrule it for good. We know no- 
thing but the simple facts, that he permitted it, and 
has overruled it for good : but, whether that was 
his reason or not, he has not seen fit to tell us: and, 
therefore, it is not our place to inquire: and, if men 
would not wish to be wise above what is written-, 
there would be less controversy and difference of 
opinion. 



DECREES OF GOD. 31 

DIALOGUE IV. 

DECREES OF GOD. 

Convert. — In our last conversation, I understood, 
rom some of your remarks, that there is an insepa- 
rable connection between God's decrees and fore- 
knowledge. Yet, I find the Confession of Faith 
says, in chapter 3, section 2, that "he hath not de- 
creed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or 
as that which would come to pass upon such condi- 
tions." 

Minister. — You will observe, that the Confession 
only says, that he did not decree any thing because 
he foresaw it — that is, his foreknowledge is not the 
ground, or cause, of his decrees — still, they are in- 
separably connected. His decrees are not dependent 
upon his foreknowledge, nor identical with it; but, 
his foreknowledge is rather dependent upon his de- 
crees, though perfectly distinct from them. 

In the case of the distiller, mentioned in our last 
conversation as an illustration, how could I know 
certainly that I would go to that neighborhood to 
preach, if I had not determined to go? If my pur- 
pose to go, were in any degree unsettled or undeter- 
mined, I could not know certainly that I would go. 
But, if I had determined to go, then I would know it 
certainly. So, if God knew that he would create 
the world, it was because he had determined to do 
it. If his purpose were unsettled, or if he had not 
come to the determination to do it, he could not 
know it certainly. But, if he had his purpose fixed, 
then he knew it certainly. It is in this sense that 



32 DECREES OF GOD, 

t:ie decrees of God, and his foreknowledge, are in- 
separably connected. 

Con. — I understand it, I think, now, perfectly, 
and must confess, that the doctrine of decrees, in all 
its parts, seems to me so reasonable and plain, that 1 
am surprised, moie and more, at the virulent oppo- 
sition which many professors of religion manifest 
against it. I find, too, from looking at the scriptural 
references in the Confession of Faith, that it is 
abundantly sustained by the Bible. 

Mi'/i. — The passages quoted in the Confession, are 
but a few of the many with which the Scriptures 
abound. Indeed, the doctrine is so interwoven 
through all the promises, calls, threatenings, and in- 
siructionsof the Bible, that to take it away, would 
mar the whole. But, did you notice the peculiar 
force of the language of the Bible on this point? 
One of the passages quoted, is Eph. 1: 11 — "In 
whom, (Christ) also we have obtained an inherit- 
ance, being predestinated according to the purpose 
of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will." This is stronger language than can be 
found any where in our standards. Here is a "pre- 
destination" a "purpose" and a "counsel'- of God, 
"according" to which, he "worketh all things" Pe- 
ter, in his first epistle, 1: 20 — speaking of Ohiist, 
says, he was "verily foreordained before the founda- 
tion of the world." I\ow, it is admitted on all 
hands, that God had, in the counsels of eternity, 
decreed to send the Savior for the ledemption of 
fallen man — but, how could that be, if the fall of 
man was uncertain? In Acts 4: 27, 2S, we read 
thus : "Of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus. 
whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius 
Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were 



DECREES OF GOD. 33 

gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and 
thy counsel determined before to be done." Now, 
can any one say, that the death of Christ was an un- 
certain event in the purpose of God? He knew, 
certainly, that they would assemble to take away 
his life, and he had decreed to permit it ; and, thus 
it was fixed upon as certain, without the smallest 
possibility of mistake, with the wise and almighty 
disposer of all events. 

Con. — Then, are we to conclude, that Judas and 
his accomplices could not have acted otherwise? 

Min. — That does not necessarily follow from the 
absolute certainty of their course. They could have 
acted otherwise, if they would. A man has power 
to do that which it is absolutely certain he will not 
do, and to refrain from doing that which it is abso- 
lutely certain he will do. Had the Savior called 
"twelve legions of angels," which he said he could 
have done, and overcome the band that came against 
him with Judas, or forcibly prevented them, in any 
other way; or, if he had impelled them against their 
will to do as they did, they could not have acted 
freely. But he left them to fulfill his purpose, in 
doing as their wicked inclinations prompted them. 
Hence, Peter charges them with the crime, whilst 
at the same time he declares that they acted accord- 
ing to the purpose of God. Acts 2 : 23 — "Him be- 
ing delivered by the determinate counsel and fore- 
knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by zoicked 
hands have crucified and slain." From this you can 
perceive, that the Confession of Faith speaks the 
language of the Bible and of common sense, when 
it says, that God has so decreed all things, that "no 
violence is offered to the ivill of the creatures, nor is the 
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, 
but rather established." 



34 



DECREES OF GOD. 



Con. — But, if God thus brings good out of evil, 
and the wicked actions of men are all thus overruled 
for his glory, why are wicked men punished? 

Min. — This is the very objection that the Apostle 
meets, in Rom. 3 : 5 — "If our unrighteousness com- 
mend the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? 
Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ? (I speak 
as a man)" — that is, he speaks the language of a 
common objection, which men might be likely to 
make, and no doubt did make, then as well as now. 
But, how does he answer it? "God forbid; for, 
then, how shall God judge the world?" The same 
objection he meets, in the 9th chapter and 19th 
verse : "Thou wilt then say unto me, why doth he 
yet find fault; for who hath resisted his w r ill?" And 
what is his answer ? " A T ay, but man, who art 
thou that repliest against God?" This would be 
sufficient ; but, I may add, that an action being over- 
ruled for good, cannot, in the smallest degree, lessen 
its criminality. In the case I have already supposed, 
my determination to overrule for good the wicked- 
ness of those men in burning their neighbor's house, 
and attempting to burn mine, could not, in any de- 
gree, lessen the criminality of their actions. So, you 
perceive, that God can still "judge the world" in 
righteousness, as Paul asserts, though he overrules 
sin to his own glory, and for a greater good. 

There are hundreds of other passages in the Bible 
equally as plain as those I have mentioned. Isa. 
46 : 10 — "I am God, and there is none like me, decla- 
ring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 
times the things that are not yet done, saying, my 
counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" 
Paul, in Acts 17: 26, says, God "hath made of one 
blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face 



DECREES OF GOD. 35 

of the earth, and hath determined the times before ap- 
pointed, and the bounds of their habitation" I shall 
cite but one passage more, though I might produce a 
hundred. Joseph's brethren were, like the crucifiers 
of the Savior, very guilty in selling their brother in- 
to Egypt; but, he tells them plainly, Gen. 50: 20 — 
"As for you, ye meant it for evil against me, but 
God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this 
day, to save much people alive." Now, can any 
thing be plainer, than that God intentionally permit- 
ted the selling of Joseph for important reasons, and 
had decreed so to do, as well as to direct his future 
course. Now, I would ask any candid man, wheth- 
er the Confession of Faith pushes the doctrine of 
decrees farther than the Bible 1 — or, whether com- 
mon sense can find any other system of doctrine, 
consistent with the character of God? 

Con. — My mind is perfectly satisfied that the doc- 
trine of the Confession is both reasonable and scrip- 
tural. But I have a difficulty still, with regard to 
some of its consequences. If all things are so cer- 
tainly arranged in the purposes of God, what en- 
couragement have we to pray ? 

Min. — We have infinitely more encouragement 
to pray, than if events depended upon creatures, or 
were suspended in uncertainty. God has so arranged 
all events, that every effectual fervent prayer of the 
righteous shall be fulfilled, and that without resort- 
ing to miracle, or interfering with his other purposes. 
But take away the doctrine, and we have no en- 
couragement to pray, that I can conceive of. You 
ask God to convert a sinner, but if the matter be not 
in his hands, and is left to chance, or the sinner's 
own natural inclinations, you pray in vain. God 
cannot interfere for fear of destroying free agency. 



36 DECREES OF GOD. 

Thus you perceive, that if God be not the sovereign 
disposer of all events, the mouth of prayer is closed. 
But, if it be a part of his plan, certainly to answer 
every prayer of faith, then we can come to him with 
confidence and great encouragement. 

Con. — But, does it not discourage the use of 
means ? 

Mi?i. — In the illustration I gave of the distiller, 
did my determinations and arrangements in my 
plan, discourage the use of the means in carrying it 
out? It embraced all the means of its accomplish- 
ment ; and the arrangements of the plan were the 
ground of encouragement for the use of the means. 
So of God's plan. It embraces all the means of its 
accomplishment ; and, when we engage in his ser- 
vice, in the use of his prescribed means, we have the 
great encouragement of knowing, that it is by these 
he has determined to accomplish his great work. 

Con. — It is to be regretted that this doctrine is 
by so many misunderstood. Would it not have been 
better for the framers of the Confession of Faith, to 
have been a little more guarded, and not to have 
used language that was so liable to be misunderstood 
and perverted ? 

Mill. — I know not what they could have done 
more than they have, without departing from Scrip- 
ture truth. The Confession is easily understood by 
any one w r ho wishes to understand it. We may as 
well say, why did not the writers of the Bible use 
other language? There are hundreds of passages 
in the Bible just as strong as any used in the Con- 
fession. Why did Paul say, "Predestinated accord- 
ing to the purpose of him who worketh all things," 
&lc. Why did he not leave out the whole of the 
first chapter to the Ephesians, and the eighth and 



ELECTION. 37 

ninth to the Romans ? Indeed, I believe if the fra- 
mers of the Confession had taken verbatim some 
passages of Scripture, it could not have lessened the 
opposition. Jude says, there were certain men 
"who were before, of old, ordained to this condemna- 
tion" Now, if the framers of the Confession had 
taken that language as it stands, without inserting 
the words 'for their sin" what would our enemies 
have said ? 

Con. — I believe it is best to follow the Bible, re- 
gardless of the opinions of men ; and, I believe, the 
truth will ultimately commend itself to all intelligent 
minds. I would be glad to have some further con- 
versation with you on some other doctrines which I 
find it difficult to understand, if it would not be tres- 
passing too much upon your time. 

Min. — I will be glad to give you all the informa- 
tion I can, and will be at leisure to-morrow evening, 
when we will take up the doctrine of election as it 
is intimately connected with the doctrine of decrees. 



DIALOGUE V. 

ELECTION. 

Convert. — Since our last conversation, I have been 
examining the Confession of Faith, and have been 
not a little surprised that I cannot find the terms 
reprobate, and reprobation, any where used. I 
thought they were used in contradistinction to the 
terms elect and election. 



3S ELECTION. 

Minister. — They are not used in our standards, I 
believe, any where, though uniformly charged up- 
on us, as an epithet by which to excite odium. I 
have been the more surprised at this, because they 
are Scripture terms; and, I would have no objection 
to use them in the sense in which the Bible uses 
them. They mean, not approved, or chosen — and, if 
in this sense applied to the finally impenitent, their 
use would be proper. But the enemies of the doc- 
trine of election, have coined a new meaning for the 
words, and then charge us with using them, with 
their meaning. The doctrinal tracts of the Metho- 
dist Church, which we examined some time ago, 
ring their changes upon "election and reprobation," 
as if scarcely any thing else were in our standards ; 
whereas, reprobation, in the sense in which they use 
it, is neither part, nor consequence, of the doctrine 
of election. 

Con. — The idea I have had of the common mean- 
ing of the term reprobation, is, that God made a 
part of mankind merely to damn them — and, that he 
has, by his decree respecting them, made it impossi- 
ble for them to be saved, let them do what they may: 
and, that this is a necessary consequence of the 
doctrine of election, and so necessarily connected 
with it, that they must both stand or fall together. 

Min. — I know this is the common misrepresenta- 
tion, but such sentiments are no where to be found 
in our Confession of Faith, or in any of our stan* 
dard writers; and only exist in the imaginations 
and writings of errorists, who scarcely ever oppose 
the truth without misrepresentation. Election has 
nothing to do with the damnation of a single sin- 
ner. It is God's purpose of love and mercy, em- 
bracing in itself the means and agencies for carry- 



ELECTION. 39 

ing it out. It embraces no decree, or purpose, that 
hinders any one from coming to Christ and being 
saved, if they would. There is nothing that hin- 
ders their salvation but their own aversion to holi- 
ness, and their love of sin — and, it is for this, that 
God has purposed to damn them. 

Con. — What then is the doctrine of election, as 
held by the Presbyterian Church? 

Min. — The best definition I can give of it, is con- 
tained in the answer to the 30th question in our 
Larger Catechism: "God doth not leave all men to 
perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which 
they fell by the breach of the first covenant, com- 
monly called the covenant of works; but, of his 
mere love and mercy, delivereth his elect out of it, 
and bringeth them into an estate of salvation, by 
the second covenant, commonly called the covenant 
of grace." Now, one simple question will deter- 
mine the truth of this, on the plain principles of 
common sense. Does God save all men out of their 
estate of sin and misery, or does he leave some 
to perish in their sin, as they choose? If he save 
all men "through the sanctification of the spirit and 
belief of the truth," then the doctrine of election 
is not true — but, if he do not, then it is true. 

Con. — It is very plain, that he does not save all 
men — but does he not offer salvation to all men? 

Min. — Certainly. But, do you suppose that noth- 
ing more is necessary for salvation than to offer it? 

Con. — -By no means. I believe if God would 
leave men with a mere offer of salvation, not one 
would ever accept of it. At least I judge so from 
my own experience. I fully believe, if he had not 
come with the influences of his Spirit, I should have 
listened carelessly to the calls of the Gospel, until 



40 ELECTION. 

death would have sealed my doom forever — and, I 
feel, that I cannot be too thankful for his unspeaka- 
ble mercy. 

Min. — You believe, then, that salvation is entire- 
ly of God ; or, as the Apostle expresses it, he is "the 
author andjinisker of our faith;" and, that he has 
done a work in this respect for you, which he has 
not done for your unconverted Neighbor. But, do 
you suppose it was on account of any thing natu- 
rally good in yourself, that he made the difference? 

Con. — I can take no praise to myself. I was 
running the same course with my wicked compan- 
ions; and, in some respects I believe, I was the 
most wicked of all. I know, and feel, that it is all 
of grace, and can truly say, it is "by the grace of 
God, I am what I am." 

Min. — Your experience in this respect, corres- 
ponds with the language of Scripture, 1st Cor. 4: 7 
— "Who maketh thee to differ from another ; and, 
what hast thou, that thou didst not receive ?" Eph. 
2 : 1 — "You hath he quickened, who w r ere dead in 
trespasses and sins." John 1 : 13 — "Which were 
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 
of the will of man, but of God." Tit. 3: 5— "Not 
by works of righteousness which we have done, but 
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing 
of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." Indeed, the Bible every where ascribes sal- 
vation entirely to God ; and, I have never yet been 
able to find a true Christian who felt he had any 
ground of boasting, as being in any sense, or in any 
degree, the author of his own regeneration. But, 
as you ascribe the work entirely to God, do you 
suppose he intended your regeneration and conver- 
sion, when he came in mercy by his Spirit; or, was 



ELECTION. 41 

it accidentally done, without any gracious design to- 
wards you ? 

Con. — I can hardly suppose you serious in asking 
such a question. 

Miiu — It does imply an absurdity. A man who 
acts without design, or purpose, is accounted fool- 
ish ; and, it would be both absurd and impious, to 
impute any thing of the kind to God. But, I pro- 
posed the question preparatory to another. If God 
acted with a gracious design in thus changing your 
heart, when did he form that design ? Do you sup- 
pose he conceived a gracious purpose towards you 
at the time, or had he it previously ? And, if he 
had it previously, when was it first formed ? 

Con. — It must have been eternal, for he cannot 
have any new designs. With him there cannot be 
any succession of time. He is "from everlasting to 
everlasting ;" and, as his existence is eternal, and 
"his understanding infinite," all his designs and pur- 
poses must be eternal. And, when I think of his 
"gracious thoughts" towards me, and attempt to 
trace them to their fountain, I find myself lost in 
eternity. 

Min. — You have now expressed every thing that 
is intended and embraced, in the doctrine of elec- 
tion. It is simply grace traced to its eternal source. 
It is the design or purpose of God, to accomplish 
that work of grace in the heart, which believers ex- 
perience in regeneration, and to carry it on to per- 
fection and glory. Now, the simple question is, did 
he purpose to accomplish this work of grace in the 
hearts of all men? This, no man of common sense 
can believe. So, you perceive, w r e must either deny 
the doctrine of regeneration and sanctification by 
grace, or admit the doctrine of election. Those who 
4 



42 



ELECTION, 



pretend to believe that salvation is entirely by the 
grace of God, and yet deny the doctrine of election* 
can lay but few claims either to consistency, or com- 
mon sense. 

Con,— But, does not the believer do something in 
his own conversion ? 

Min. — The action of the mind in believing and 
turning to God, is the believer's own work — that is, 
he believes. God does not believe for him. But, 
this is the fruit of regeneration ; and, they are so 
intimately and inseparably connected, that persons 
do not always distinguish between them. They 
are, however, clearly distinct. Breathing is the re- 
sult of life, and always inseparably connected with 
it. A person must live in order to breathe, yet 
breathing is the operation of life, not life itself. So 
in spiritual life. Regeneration is the giving of life ; 
and holy exercises are the operations or action of a 
"quickened" soul. Your own experience will per- 
haps be the best illustration of the fact. Though 
convinced of sin, and dreading its consequences, you 
felt a strong disinclination to give yourself to God, 
on the terms of the Gospel ; but, you were after- 
wards brought to see its beauty, and its perfect 
adaptedness to your case. It was the same Gos- 
pel, and the same Savior, who had been offered be- 
fore, but, you seemed to view them in a new light. 
You, in short, felt your views of God and religion 
changed, in a way that led you to desire and seek 
what you formerly disliked and slighted. Now, it 
is this change of views and feelings, that is called 
regeneration ; and is the work of God — and, the ex- 
ercises of love, faith, and hope, and the action 
of giving yourself to God, consequent upon your 
change of feelings, is conversion. Now, it is admit- 



ELECTION. 43 

ted on all hands, that you acted freely, and felt that 
you were exercising and doing those things your- 
self — but, the question is, did you change your own 
feelings ? This, you have said, and the Bible every 
w r here declares, is the work of God. In doing it, he 
accomplished a gracious design, which he had to- 
ward you from eternity — and, that gracious design, 
was your election. Hence, it is sometimes called 
personal election, because God has the same gracious 
design toward each individual whom he calls. 

Con. — It is surely a doctrine that is calculated to 
excite gratitude in the heart of a Christian ; but, 
does it not show partiality in God, in doing more for 
gome than others ? 

Min. — God distinguishes, it is true, but he is not 
partial; for, partiality means a preferring one be- 
fore another, without sufficient reasons, or overlook- 
ing just claims. If any of the human family could 
claim any thing at the hand of God, there would be 
cause of complaint, that some were passed by, in 
his purpose of mercy. But, when all equally de- 
serve hell, if he see fit to save some, for a display of 
his mercy, and leave others to the fate they choose, 
for a display of his justice, though the former have 
great ground of gratitude, the others have no cause 
of complaint. 

Suppose the monarch of some mighty empire 
hears that some province of his dominions has re- 
belled. Having no pleasure in their death, he sends 
them an offer of pardon upon consistent terms, and 
they all refuse to accept it. Still inclined to mer- 
cy, he sends oat embassadors, who use every en- 
treaty with the rebels, but in vain. They call their 
monarch a tyrant, and persist in their wicked rebel- 
lion. The compassionate monarch, still unwilling 



14 ELECTION. 

to give them up, goes among them himself, and by 
his own personal influence, prevails on a greater 
part of them to accept his proposals of pardon. But f 
as such signal obstinacy ought not to go unpunish- 
ed, he executes the sentence of the law on the rest. 
Thus the greater part are reconciled, and the rest 
are punished. Now, who could accuse the monarch 
of partiality, or blame his course ? 

But, vary the case a little. Suppose this monarch 
has foreknowledge, and can clearly foresee the re- 
bellion long before it takes place. He reasons with 
himself thus: "I see that some years hence, part of 
my kingdom will rebel. Well, I will send them a 
proposal of pardon. But, I know they will all re- 
ject it. I will then send special messengers to ex- 
plain to them their danger, and the honorable man- 
ner in which I wish to save them, and to use every 
entreaty to bring them back to their allegiance. 
But, I see they will reject all. I will then go my- 
self, and prevail on the greater part of them to ac- 
cept my offer, and will punish the remainder as en- 
samples to my whole empire. But, seeing that my 
proclamation and my messengers will effect no- 
thing, shall I omit to send them ? No ; I will send 
them, to convince all, of my sincerity in offering 
pardon and mercy; to show what obstinacy existed 
in the hearts of the rebels ; and, to convince all, of 
the wisdom, justice, and mercy of my proceed- 
ings." 

Now, can we find any more reason to blame the 
monarch, because his determinations were formed 
previously to the rebellion ? Can we condemn him 
for taking the course he ought to have taken, if his 
purposes had not been formed until the time ? Was 
he partial in determining to make a public exam- 



ELECTION. 45 

pie of some of the rejecters of his mercy ? Can any- 
one say that his determination to save some, wrong- 
ed the others? Did his decree to save some, fix the 
condition of the others, so that it was impossible for 
them to accept his offer of pardon? They fixed their 
condition themselves. They were "ordained to 
wrath and dishonor for their sins" But, will any 
one blame him for not constraining all to accept his 
oifer? This were to allow him no room for the ex- 
ercise of discretion. Or, will any one say, he ought 
not to have used his influence to persuade any, but 
left all alike ? Then there would have been no ob- 
jects upon whom to exercise mercy. 

Now, though we cannot find an illustration that 
will exactly, in all points, meet the case, yet I have, 
I believe, in this, exhibited our view of election in 
every material point, and you can easily make the 
application of it in your own mind to God, as the 
sovereign of the universe, and this world a rebelled 
province. God, in infinite mercy, has offered par- 
don to the rebels of Adam's race, through his Son. 
His language is, "Whosoever will, let him come." 
But, all refuse; and, if left to themselves, every in- 
dividual of mankind will reject the offer, and ever- 
lastingly perish- Christ would have died in vain, 
and there could be no trophies of his mercy. But, 
God determined that this should not be the case. 
He sends his spirit, and sweetly constrains them to 
yield, in a manner that will forever redound to the 
praise of his mercy and grace. What proportion of 
the human family he has included in his purpose of 
mercy, we are not informed ; but, in view of the 
future days of prosperity promised to the Church, 
it may be inferred, that the greater part will, at last, 
be found among the number of the elect of God. 



46 ELECTION. 

But, although the number is unknown to us, it is 
"certain" and "definite" with God; so that he can- 
not be disappointed, either in finding among them 
one whom he did not expect, or in losing one he 
purposed to save. This is what our Confession of 
Faith means, and all it means, in saying that the 
number is so "certain and definite, that it cannot be 
increased or diminished." 

I have now, I think, shown you, that the doctrine 
of election is, in every point, a plain dictate of com- 
mon sense. I wish also to show you, that it must 
be true, from the character of God, and the Bible. 
But, our conversation has been sufficiently protract- 
ed at this time. Call when you have leisure, and 
we will pursue the subject farther, in the light of 
God's w r ord. 



DIALOGUE VL 

ELECTION. 

Convert. — Since our last conversation, I have been 
reflecting on the views you presented, and am con- 
strained to acknowledge, that I can find no other 
doctrine consistent with facts, the character of God, 
and the Bible. It is a fact that must be conceded, 
that God is the author of regeneration; and, this 
once conceded, the doctrine of election must be true, 
or we at once deny his character as infinite. But, 
still, there are some consequences of the doctrine, 
which seem to me irreconcileable with God's good- 



ELECTION. 47 

ness and sincerity, in offering pardon to sinners. 
Does it not render it necessary that some must be 
lost, and some must be saved? 

Minister, — You fail to distinguish between necessi- 
ty and certainty. If you were to say, it renders it cer- 
tain that some will be lost, and some will be saved, 
then you have the true issue ; but this, you perceive, 
alters the case materially. There is no necessity 
placed upon the impenitent to refuse the offers of 
the Gospel, though God knows certainly they wi/L 
But, even that certainty, does not flow from the 
doctrine of election. Take away the doctrine, and 
see if the case will be any better. Will any be 
saved without election, that will not be saved with 
it? If you take away God's special purpose to save, 
every sinner of Adam's race will most certainly per- 
ish. 

Con. — But, still it seems, that God cannot be sin- 
cere in offering salvation to all men, when it is cer- 
tain that some will not accept it. 

Min. — If he had formed no purpose to save any, 
and offered salvation to all, knowing they would re- 
fuse, could he be sincere ? 

Con. — Certainly; for, if they would accept, they 
would be saved. Besides, he might offer, knowing 
certainly they would refuse, to show his willing- 
ness to save, and the justice of their condemnation. 

Min. — You have now answered the objection; 
for, God's purpose to save some, does not affect, in 
any point, the light in which he stands to the rest, 
or the relation in which they stand to him. They 
are left just as they were; and still, if they would 
accept his offer, they would infallibly be saved; and, 
it is just as much their duty to repent and be saved, 
as if he had elected none. 



48 ELECTION. 

Con. — But, will the doctrine not discourage the 
use of means, and making exertions to obtain sal- 
vation ? 

Min. — To whom can it be discouraging? Sure- 
ly not to Ministers of the Gospel. When Paul was 
preaching at Athens, he was discouraged, until God 
preached to him the doctrine of election. In the 
midst of his discouragement, how cheering it must 
have been, to be told of God, "Be not afraid, but 
speak, * # for / have much people in this city."- — 
Acts 18: 10. Now, here we have election from the 
mouth of God — and, what could be more encoura- 
ging, than to be thus informed, that God intended to 
convert a number of that wicked city, through the 
instrumentality of his preaching? Now, you will 
observe, God did not tell Paul, he had all the city, 
nor how many. It was enough for Paul to know he 
had some. He could then go forward, confident of 
success. Take from me the doctrine of election, and 
I have not the least hope of success. But, when I 
know that God has determined to save a vast num- 
ber of the human family in every age, "by the fool- 
ishness of preaching," I can go forward in the use 
of his appointed means, with confident hope. 

Neither can it be discouraging to sinners. It is 
the sinner's only hope. Take it away, and despair 
must shroud the whole race of Adam. But the sin- 
ner can now come to God, trusting in his special 
purpose of mercy, feeling that his help is laid no on 
one who is mighty to save, and who will infallibly 
save every one who comes to him through Christ. 
I know the doctrine sometimes makes careless sin- 
ners uneasy, and wicked men uniformly hate it. 
But, what does that amount to? Simply this. 
They refuse mercy, and wickedly reject God's 



ELECTION. 49 

grace; and, knowing that they cannot be saved in 
sin, and being unwilling to repent, they hate the 
whole system of grace. But, if any one truly de- 
sires salvation, and wishes to turn from sin, he finds 
in the doctrine of election the richest encourage- 
ment. Would it not be encouraging to the people 
of Corinth, to know that God had purposed to con- 
vert a number of them, and make them trophies of 
the cross? But, is the doctrine discouraging to the 
praying Christian ? He acknowledges the truth of 
it every time he prays that God would convert sin- 
ners, and build up his Church. And it is the fact, 
that God has promised to give this world to his Son, 
and gather the vast multitude of his elect from every 
nation, that is his only encouragement to pray. I 
have, indeed, sometimes, wondered what encour- 
agement those have to pray, who deny the doctrine. 
If it be not true that the work is God's, and he has 
purposed to carry it on, why need any one pray ? If 
the work be left to the decisions of sinners, or to 
chance, the proper course would be to pray to those 
who have the work to do. It is foolishly absurd, as 
well a? impious, to deny, that, the work is God's, 
and then pray that he would do it. So, you per- 
ceive, it is the denial of the doctrine, that discour- 
age; prayer. But, what encouragement it affords, 
to know, that God has purposed to carry on this glo- 
rious work, until the blessed religion of Jesus shall 
triumph over the whole world, and has declared, 
too, that it will be done, in answer to the earnest 
prayers of his people. 

Con. — I see much depends upon a right under- 
standing of the doctrine. But, still, is it not calcu- 
lated to do harm? 

Min. — How can it do harm? We have seen, that 



50 ELECTION. 

it contains the only ground of hope, to the Minister 
as well as the sinner. Who was a more zealous ad- 
vocate for the doctrine than Paul? There is no 
modern writer who states the doctrine so plainly, or 
in so forcible language; and, yet, who was more 
zealous and indefatigable in labors? And the rea- 
son is plain. He knew that God had determined to 
save a great many in the w T orld, and had placed the 
instrumentality in his hands. This, with love to 
his Master, constituted the glorious motive that ac- 
tuated him in all his labors. Can it do harm for a 
Minister to believe, that God, the Father, has prom- 
ised the Savior "a seed," which shall surely be gath- 
ered, as the glorious reward of his sufferings ? — and, 
that his is the important work, so far as instrumen- 
tality is concerned, of gathering this promised seed 
to the Savior ? Could there be any higher motive 
placed before the mind of a true lover of the Lord 
Jesus Christ? Or, can it do harm, to preach this 
doctrine, as a motive to Christian effort, or as an 
inducement for sinners to believe? When a sinner 
is told, that there is nothing on the part of God to 
keep him away ; that there is nothing but his own 
unwillingness and hatred of God, that stands in the 
way of his acceptance ; and, that if he will only give 
himself to God, on the terms of the Gospel, he will 
be among those whom God has purposed to save; 
he has the greatest encouragement that can be giv- 
en, to look to God for grace, and pray that he may 
be included in the number of his chosen. 

But, I grant, there is one way in which these 
doctrines are the occasion of harm. When our en- 
emies misrepresent them, and endeavor to make 
people believe that we make God the author of sin ; 
that w r e deny free agency, and the use of means ; 



ELECTION. 51 

and loudly proclaim that our doctrine "came from 
hell, and leads to hell;" and, that, "according to our 
belief, sinners may rest secure, the elect must be 
saved, and the rest must be damned, do what they 
may," &c, people will take occasion to say, "if so 
large, respectable, and upright a class of Christians, 
believe a doctrine which is pronounced 'worse than 
infidelity,' there is no truth in religion." In this 
way, the doctrine is the occasion of much harm. 
But, because others wickedly "turn the truth of God 
into a lie" must we, therefore, give it up 1 We may 
as well say that Christ should not have preached 
concerning "his kingdom," because he was wickedly 
misrepresented as claiming an earthly crown. 

Con, — 1 know such assertions are often made ; 
and, I could not but wonder, that such awful doc- 
trines were believed by a class of Christians that 
seemed so generally pious and upright in their de- 
portment, and at the same time so zealous in the 
cause of Christ. I found them, as a body, general- 
ly, the most liberal in sustaining the cause of benev- 
olence, and making at least full as many sacrifices 
and efforts for the spread of the Gospel, as any oth- 
ers. 

Min. — Let us now attend to some direct proofs 
of the doctrine of election ; and, I would remark, 
that it must be true, in the first place, from the 
character of God and his promises. 

Laying aside the thousand other promises he has 
made on this subject to his Church and people, I 
will only mention the reward promised to the Sa- 
vior. Would Christ suffer and die on an uncertain- 
ty? Would the Father subject his Son to all the 
infinite load of wrath which he bore for sinners, 
without any certain prospect of an adequate result ? 



02 ELECTION. 

And, if he, himself, had not made it certain, how 
could it be certain? If it were placed in any other 
hands but his, it could not be certain. Let us for a 
moment suppose, that God has not positively deter- 
mined to bring any one to Christ; and, where is the 
certainty that any will come ? 

Con. — In that case, it would be certain that none 
would come. 

Min. — Then, you perceive, we are at once driven 
to the conclusion, that he determined to "make 
them willing,'' or there could be no certainty that 
the Savior should "see of the travail of his soul, and 
be satisfied." We might reason in the same way 
respecting all the attributes of God. It is inconsist- 
ent with any one of them, to deny his special pur- 
pose of mercy. But, enough has been said, in the 
light of reason. Let us examine the Bible, and see 
if it teaches the doctrine : for, however reasonable 
it may appear, if it be not plainly taught there, we 
must give it up. Eph. 1 : 4 — "According as he hath 
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame, before 
him, in love;" and, that his meaning might be the 
more plain, he adds, in the 5th verse, "Having pre- 
destinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus 
Christ, to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
his will." And. in the 11th verse of the same chap- 
ter, he says, "In whom also we have obtained an in- 
heritance, being predestinated according to the pur- 
pose of him who worketh all things after the coun- 
sel of his own will." Does not this look like the 
doctrine of election? But, again, Rom. S: 2S — 
"We know that all things shall work together for 
good, to them that love God: to them who are the 
called, according to his purpose." "For, whom he 



ELECTION. 5*J 

did foreknow, he also did predestinate* to be con- 
formed to the image of his Son. * # Moreover, 
whom lie did predestinate, them he also called, and 
whom he called, them he also justified, and whom 
he justified, them he also glorified." Now, if the 
doctrine of election be not true, we may safely chal- 
lenge any man to tell us, what the Apostle means 
by such language. But, in 2 Thes. 2: 11 — 13, he 
uses still stronger language : "And for this cause, 
God shall send them strong delusion that they should 
believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who be- 
lieve not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 
ness." Is the language of our Confession stronger 
than this, when it says, they weie "ordained to 
wrath and dishonor for their sins"? People may 
call this reprobation, or give it any other opprobri- 
ous epithet, and say, "it originated in hell," &c. ; 
but, there it is, in the language of Paul, much more 
strongly expressed than in our Confession. But, in 
the very next verse, Ave have the doctrine of elec- 
tion, expressed in language equally strong : "But we 
are bound to give thanks alway to God, for you, 
brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath, 
from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, 
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth." He expresses the same sentiment, in lan- 
guage equally explicit, in his 2d epistle to Timothy, 
1: 9 — "God hath saved us, and called us with an 
holy calling, not according to our works, but accord- 
ing to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
us in Christ Jesus, before the world began" Such is 
the language of Paul on the doctrine of election — 
and, any person is at liberty, to weigh our Confes- 
sion of Faith in this balance. 

But, let us see what the Savior himself says on 



54 ELECTION. 

this point. John 6: 36 — "All that the Father 
giveth me, shall come to me, and him that Com- 
eth to me I will in no wise cast out." Here he first 
states God's special purpose of mercy, in giving 
him a seed to serve him, and the certainty of their 
coming; and then adds the encouragement it affords 
for sinners to believe. He, it seems, did not think 
the doctrine discouraging. Those that the "Father , 
gave him," he calls his sheep — John 10: 27 — "My 
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and 
they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them 
out of my hands. My Father, icho gave them me, 
is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them 
out of my Father's hands." And, in allusion to the 
Gentiles, who had not yet had the Gospel preached 
to them, he says, in the 16th verse, "Other sheep I 
have, which are not of this fold; them also I must 
bring, and they shall hear my voice" If this does 
not express a special purpose of mercy towards all 
those that shall be eventually gathered in, language 
has no meaning. 

But, finally, he tells us of a day in which he will 
preach the doctrine to the assembled universe, 
amidst the awful grandeur of the Judgment, and 
with a voice more awfully impressive than ten 
thousand thunders. Matt. 24: 31 — "And he shall 
send his angels, with a great sound of a trumpet, 
and they shall gather together his elect from the 
four winds." And in the 25th chapter, and 34th 
veive, he tells us how he will address them: "Come 
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from the foundation of the world" 
And to the others who, as Paul expresses it, "had 
pleasure in unrighteousness," he will say, "Depart 



ELECTION. 55 

ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
devil and his angels." Thus, his purpose of mercy 
will be fulfilled, in a manner worthy of it, and of 
himself; and his purpose of judgment, too, respect- 
ing the finally impenitent, will be fulfilled, in a man- 
ner that will forever vindicate him from the charge 
of partiality. 

Con. — It will certainly be a grand and glorious 
winding up of a scheme, equally grand and glorious; 
and, I think, it will then be acknowledged, that the 
whole plan was laid in eternal and infinite wisdom 
and love, and executed in infinite grace and glory. 
I begin to see now the beauty and consistency of 
the Calvinistic scheme, because it is the scheme of 
the Bible. Those doctrines I find are justly styled 
the "doctrines of grace" and I would like to ex- 
amine with you some more of the prominent points 
of this scheme, if I have not already consumed too 
much of your time. 

Min. — I consider my time well spent in vindica- 
ting the truth from the aspersions of its enemies. I 
shall be pleased, at any time, to examine with you 
any other doctrine of our Confession, about which 
you have any difficulty. 

Con. — There are some things about the doctrine 
of total depravity, that I cannot fully understand. 
I have no doubt as to th& fact \ but, how we are 
held responsible for Adam's sin, presents a difficulty 
to my mind. 

Min. — We will take up that subject at our next 
interview. 



56 ORIGINAL SIN. 

DIALOGUE VII. 

ORIGINAL SIN. 

Minister. — In our last conversation, you men- 
tioned a difficulty under which your mind labored, 
respecting the doctrine of hereditary depravity; 
but, I think you stated, that you had no difficulty 
as to the fact, that all mankind are depraved. 

Convert. — Judging from the exhibitions of human 
nature, as they are seen on the general face of soci- 
ety, I do not see how any one can deny the fact. 
Looking at these exhibitions, under any circumstan- 
ces yet found in the w r orld, it seems to me that any 
reflecting mind must be convinced, that mankind 
are, by nature, "wholly inclined to sin," as I find it 
expressed in the Confession of Faith. 

Min. — Your sentiments accord with the language 
of the Bible, which gives a much stronger picture 
of the state of man by nature, than our Confession. 
Paul, in the first and third chapters of his epistle 
to the Romans, states it at length, in as strong lan- 
guage as can be used; and, in hundreds of other 
places, w^e find mankind spoken of as being "in the 
gall of bitterness, and bonds of iniquity." Gen. 6: 
5 — "God saw that the wickedness of man w r as great 
on the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil, continually." 
Gen. 8: 21 — "The imagination of man's heart is 
evil from his youth." But, I need not multiply 
proofs of a fact which, as you say, is proved by 
every day's observation. 

The simple fact of the universal wickedness of 



ORIGINAL SIN. 57 

mankind, has always proved a great difficulty with 
those who deny the doctrine of innate depravity. 
Some have attempted to account for it, from the in- 
fluence of example — that men are wicked, because 
they are surrounded with a bad influence. But, 
whence the universal bad example? This is endeav- 
oring to account for a fact, by referring to the fact 
itself; and, is about as wise as to say, that men are 
wicked because they are wicked. 

Others have said, that it is an abuse of their free- 
dom of will. But, why the universal abuse of free 
will? It is admitted on all hands, that the will is 
free. But, why does it uniformly choose evil? 
There must be some cause that operates in inclin- 
ing the will to act as it does. This method of ac- 
counting for the fact, is, if possible, more absurd 
than the other, and is about as consistent with com- 
mon sense, as to account for the changes of the 
wind, by the turnings of a weathercock. 

Con. — I do not see how we can avoid the con- 
clusion, that there is in man an innate propensity 
inclining him to evil. 

Min. — The next step, then, is to inquire whence, 
and upon what principles, came this propensity to 
evil. If this world be inhabited by a depraved in- 
telligence, how came it to be so? Man was not so 
created. The evil cannot be imputed to God. The 
fault must be in man himself. "God hath made man 
upright, but they have sought out many inventions," 
is w r hat the Bible tells us on this point, and to this 
statement we must all assent. It is admitted, too, 
on all hands, I believe, that some how, in conse- 
quence of the fall of our first parents, all the evil 
found in the world, has been entailed upon their 
posterity; but, the principles upon which this is to 
5 



5S ORIGINAL SKT. 

be accounted for, is a point much controverted, and 
about which you say your mind labors. 

Some deny that there was any legal connection 
between Adam and his posterity, and that they had 
no concern whatever with his sin, but that the pre- 
sent state of mankind is to be accounted for on the 
simple principle of transmission. As a tree propa- 
gates its kind, so the posterity of Adam naturally 
inherit his nature. The advocates of this doctrine,, 
express great abhorrence at the idea of being held 
in any way legally responsible for the sin of Adam; 
and represent it as highly tyrannical in God, to hold 
us responsible for a sin, committed so long before we 
were born. But they forget, that they are quarrel- 
ing with an admitted fact in the government of God. 
They admit that all evil is entailed upon us, in con- 
sequence of Adam's sin, and yet deny that we had 
any concern with it whatever. JXow, what could 
be more tyrannical than this? In the government 
and providence of God, we are visited with all the 
tremendous consequences, and dreadful evils of a 
sin, with w r hich we had no concern whatever. If 
we had no concern with his sin, it is certainly the 
highest injustice and tyranny to visit us with any of 
its consequences. Haw much more consistent with 
the character of God, and with common sense, Xo 
admit the simple fact as it is expressed in our Cate- 
chism, that we "sinned in him, and fell with him. 11 

Con. — But how could we sin in him? 

Min. — Upon the simple principle of represe?ita- 
iion, which enters into all God's dealings with us. 
It is easy to understand how a man acts through a 
representative or agent. And who would ever 
think of calling it injustice, or tyranny, to hold a 
person responsible for the actions of his agent, or 



ORIGINAL SIN. 59 

representative? The people of Ohio act in, and 
through their representatives in the Legislature. IT 
they make wholesome laws, the people, with them- 
selves, reap the benefit; and, if they make unjust 
and oppressive laws, the people, equally with them- 
selves, are involved in the evil consequences; and, 
in this way, the people become liable to all the evils 
resulting from such mal-administration. It is in this 
way, upon the principle of representation, that we 
all "sinned in Adam, and fell with him," and became 
liable to all the consequences of his sin, equally with 
himself. This is the sense in which the term "guilt" 
is used in our Confession. We are not guilty of 
Adam's sin personally, but liable to punishment, on 
account of it; and, it is in this w T ay, that we say, 
his sin is imputed to us-— that is, it is set to our ac- 
count. 

Con. — But, is not this doctrine liable to objection., 
on the ground that we had nothing to do with his 
appointment as our representative? 

Min. — Under the circumstances, it was impossi- 
ble that we could select our own agent to act for 
us; but, the simple question to be determined, is, 
was it just, wise, and merciful, in God, thus to deal 
with us on the principle of representation? and, 
when we could not choose our own representative, 
to choose one for us? Will any one say, that it 
would have been better for the human family, that 
each should have stood singly for himself, in the 
great trial of obedience? In that case, we must 
leave out of view the covenant of grace and the 
Savior; for, each individual, standing for himself 
upon the great trial for life or death, can have no 
reference to another. Then, all mankind, from in- 
fancy to age — every moment — is on trial; and, the 



60 ORIGINAL SIN. 

moment any one fails in thought, word, or action, 
then eternal death is the penalty, without a single 
gleam of hope. The feeble infant, with no distinct 
conceptions of law, or penalty, with almost no 
power to distinguish between good and evil, una- 
ble properly to appreciate the tendencies of con- 
duct, and, more than all, without any knowledge 
that it is placed on such a trial; yet, is every mo- 
ment standing in such a relation to God and his 
law, that the indulgence of a single sinful feeling, 
brings upon it all the weight of the infinite penalty 
of God's law. Now, how it displays the goodness 
of God, to put that infant on trial, in the person of 
such a perfect being as Adam ! And, when the 
Bible reveals the fact, that this was actually done. 
who, in the name of common sense, and of wisdom 
and goodness, can find fault and say, it was unjust 
and tyrannical ? 

But, to put the matter in a still more favorable 
light, suppose that all should be kept by God until 
maturity, and then put on trial; and, even allowing 
them to be as fully endowed with moral strength as 
Adam was, yet placed upon the awfully solemn tri- 
al, under such circumstances, that the moment any 
one should sin, in thought, word, or deed, his case 
is forever as hopeless as that of the fallen angels, 
(who stood precisely in those circumstances,) and 
the case is very little better. Now, is there any 
one of all Adam's race, who would prefer thus to be 
placed? Does it not show, in a striking light, the 
wisdom and goodness of God, in thus putting us on 
trial in our original progenitor, and thereby increas- 
ing, more than ten thousand-fold, his motives to 
obedience? Does not the principle of representation , 
upon which God deals with us, commend itself to 



ORIGINAL SIN. 61 

the plainest dictates of reason and common sense? 
And, who will find fault with his Maker, for select- 
ing a representative for us, when we could not, un- 
der the circumstances, choose one ourselves? And, 
moreover, he appointed the very person, whom all 
mankind would have chosen, if it could have been 
ieft to them. 

Cm. — Is this what is meant in the Catechism by 
the "covenant" which, it says, was "made with 
Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity"? 

Min. — Yes ; the agreement entered into between 
God and Adam, whereby he stood as our represent- 
ative, is called a covenant, because there were cer- 
tain stipulations to be fulfilled, and a reward prom- 
ised; and, on the other hand, a penalty threatened 
for the breach of it. 

Con. — But, is all this clearly revealed in the Bi- 
ble? 

Min. — We are not told, in express words, that 
there was a covenant made between God and Ad- 
am ; and, the opposers of the doctrine, have at- 
tempted to triumph, because it is not stated, in so 
many words, that there was such a covenant trans- 
action. But, such attempts at tiiumph, are, to say 
the least, very silly. I once heard a Socinian tri- 
umph in the same way, because he said the words 
divinity of Christ, were not to be found in the Bi- 
ble. And, a Universalist also, once, in my hearing, 
pretended to triumph, because he said the words fu- 
ture punishment, were not found in the Bible. You 
can easily perceive, that such things only betray 
their weakness. The question is not, are the exact 
words, by which we express an idea, found in the 
Bible — but, is the idea there plainly taught I 
The idea of the representative character of Adam, 
and of his covenant relation to us, is as plainly 



62 ORIGINAL SIX. 

taught in the Bible, as almost any other truth. Rom. 
5: 19 — "By one man's disobedience, many were 
made sinners." Verse 12 — "By one man, sin enter- 
ed into the world, and death by sin, and so death 
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" We 
are here taught, as plainly as can be, that death is 
the consequence of sin ; and, the reason that all die, 
is, "that all have sinned." Now, we know, that 
many die in infancy, before any actual sin can be 
laid to their charge. Then, how have they sinned? 
It is impossible to explain it on any other supposi- 
tion, than that they sinned in Adam ; and they 
could not sin in him in any other w^ay, but by rep- 
resentation. 

Con. — Do you then believe, that those dying in 
infancy, will be condemned on account of their ori- 
ginal sin? 

Min. — That is not a necessary conclusion. Rea- 
soning from analogy, we may conclude, that it is 
consistent with God's character and manner of deal- 
ing with mankind, to save them through the atone- 
ment of Christ. Paul tells us, Rom. 5 : 14 — that 
"death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over 
them that had not sinned, after the similitude of 
Adam's transgression" — that is, infants who had not 
sinned actually. Now, seeing that, they are invol- 
ved in the consequences of Adam's sin, without ac- 
tual participation, they may be included in the pur- 
pose of mercy through Christ, without actual parti- 
cipation by faith. But, if saved, they will be saved 
as redeemed sinners, and will unite with all the host 
of God's elect, in singing "glory to the Lamb that 
redeemed us, and washed us in his blood." Now, it 
is plain, that they cannot be redeemed, if they are 
not lost ; they cannot be washed, if they are not 



ORIGINAL SIN. 63 

polluted: they cannot be saved through Christ, if 
they are not sinners. If they are saved through 
Christ, it is an incontrovertible proof that they are 
sinners through Adam. 

But, farther, Paul says, Rom. 5 : 18 — "By the 
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation" If this does not prove that all men are 
liable to condemnation, on account of the sin of Ad- 
am, language has no meaning. And, there is no 
way that they could become thus liable, but by sus- 
taining to him a covenant relation, such as I have 
spoken of. Many other passages are equally clear, 
in teaching the same truth, by plain and necessary 
deduction, which I need not enumerate. But, w r e 
are not left to this mode of proof entirely. It is 
plainly manifest, that every item essential to a cov- 
enant, is contained in the transaction between God 
and Adam ; and the term "covenant" is given to it 
by Hosea, 7 : 9 — "They like men have transgressed 
the covenant." The literal rendering of the He- 
brew, is, "they like Adam have transgressed the cov- 
enant" The Hebrew phrase, "ke Adam" which is 
here used, is so rendered, in Job 31 : 33 — "If I cov- 
ered my transgression, as Adam" &c. ; from which 
it is plain, that the idea of a covenant with Adam, 
was familiar to the inspired writers. 

I have now given a few, and only a few, of the 
many arguments that might be drawn from reason 
and the Bible, as well as from facts, to prove the 
representative character of Adam, and our covenant 
relation to him, on the ground of which his sin is 
imputed to his posterity : and they consequently in- 
herit a sinful nature, having "sinned in him, and 
fallen with him, in his first transgression." Enough, 
however, has been said, I think, to show you, that 



64 FREE GRACE. 

the doctrine of our Confession of Faith on this 
subject, is the doctrine of the Bible, and of common 
sense. 

Con. — My mind is entirely relieved of its difficul- 
ty; and, I find the doctrine of imputation, so far as 
it respects Adam's sin, is far different from what I 
had conceived it to be. 

Min. — The other part of the doctrine, viz: the 
imputation of Christ's righteousness as our only de- 
pendence for salvation, I presume you understand 
more clearly. 

Con. — I have made it my only dependence, and 
rejoice to do so ; but, still I would be glad to un- 
derstand it more fully, as my Methodist neighbor 
tells me that faith, and good works, are, at least in 
part, the meritorious ground of my justification. 

Min. — We will take up that subject, in our next 
conversation. 



DIALOGUE VIIL 

FREE GRACE. 

Minister. — In establishing the doctrine of the im- 
puted righteousness of Christ, as the only ground of 
our justification in the sight of God, it is important, 
in the first place, to have a clear understanding of 
our relations to him, and the claims of his law. 

Convert. — Are we still under obligations to obey 
the law of God, notwithstanding we have broken it, 
and incurred its penalty ? 



FREE GRACE. G5 

Min. — The fact that we have broken God's law, 
cannot free us from obligations to serve and obey 
him, in the smallest degree. But, we are speaking 
now, more particularly, of what is necessary to es- 
cape the penalty justly due us as sinners. It is said 
by some, that God has relaxed the original terms up- 
on which eternal life was first promised, and that he 
lias been graciously pleased, for Christ's sake, to 
make a new covenant with man, in which he prom- 
ises to pardon our sins if we repent ; and, since we 
cannot render perfect obedience during all our life, 
he w T ill accept of our imperfect obedience, if it be 
sincere. This, I suppose, is the opinion of your 
Methodist neighbor, whom you mentioned as main- 
taining, that we are justified, in part at least, by 
works. But, this is only an attempt to "establish 
our own righteousness," and, is not only unscrip- 
tural, but absurd. The law of God is a transcript 
of his character, and was so intended to be. "Be 
ye holy, for I am. holy," was the sanction that ac- 
companied it ; and, who will dare to set up a lower 
standard ? If its claims are let down, then it is ab- 
rogated, and a new one set up, through Christ. But, 
Christ says expressly, that he "came not to destroy, 
but to fulfill." Besides, if there be a change in God's 
law, it is no longer to us a transcript of his charac- 
ter, and cannot be a perfect standard of holiness. 
Consequently, too, the principles of his government 
are changed ; and, things which were once sins, 
cannot now be so accounted ; and, things that were 
once duties, are now dispensed with, which casts a 
severe, if not impious reflection, upon both the Gov- 
ernor and his law. It is, in fact, nothing more than 
salvation by works, and casts away altogether the 
necessity of a Savior ; for, if the high authority of 



66 FREE GRACE. 

the law may give way for the accommodation of a 
criminal, why was it necessary that any obedience 
or satisfaction should be rendered to it by another 
in his stead? The obedience and sufferings of the 

Savior were, in that case, mere works of superero- 
gation, given to a law, which, after all, did not ne- 
cessarily demand them. 

Co?i. — But, may we not suppose, that the suffer- 
ings of Christ 5 were intended to show God's hatred 
of sin in such a light, that he might consistently par- 
don sin, without an impeachment of his law or cha- 
racter, when the sinner sincerely repents ? 

Min. — The sufferings of the Savior do exhibit, in 
a very striking light, the great evil of sin; and, it 
was no doubt intended, that they should do so. 
But, if we stop there, we make the atonement a 
very small matter. It represents God as making a 
show of respect for his law and government, which, 
in fact, does not exist, if he can look over a viola- 
tion of it without the satisfaction it demands ; and, 
the atonement of the Son of God, was nothing more 
than this governmental display* which would be un- 
worthy of an earthly king. This theory is, howev- 
er, becoming very popular at the present day ; and, 
what is more strange, it is advocated by some who 
call themselves Presbyterians, and profess attach- 
ment to the Confession of Faith, though they are 
not now in our connection. But, to see in a still 
clearer light, the unreasonableness of these systems, 
we have only to consider what are, in reality, the 
claims of God's law, as laid down in the Bible, which, 
I have already said, is necessary to a right under- 
standing of the subject. "Love the Lord with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, 
and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself," 



FREE GRACE. 67 

is what God claims of all his intelligent creatures. 
And, will any one say, he asks too much, or that it 
would be consistent with his character, to accept of 
any thing less? "God is love;" and, in this sum- 
mary of his law, he has given us a transcript of his 
character. It is the same grand principle that binds 
angels, and all the intelligent universe. It is like 
himself, and all his w^orks ; simple, yet grand, ma- 
jestic, and glorious in its simplicity. It extends to 
every faculty and power of the creature, "heart, 
soul, strength, and mind ;" and, being thus the ba- 
sis, or grand principle of his moral government, it is 
as unchangeable as himself. The moment he should 
give up with any of its requirements, and accept 
from a creature an obedience that was defective, 
the stabilities of his throne would be undermined. 
Hence. Christ says, that "Till Heaven and earth 
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from 
the law, till all be fulfilled. Think not that I am 
come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am 
not come to destroy, but to fulfill"— Matt. 5 : 17, IS. 
It is, therefore, not only absurd, but impious, to 
plead, that the law is changed, for the accommoda- 
tion of sinful man. Sooner may we expect Jeho- 
vah to annihilate universal creation, than give up 
"one jot or one tittle" of that law, which is the 
transcript of his character. Now, it is this law, 
which claims obedience originally from us, and its 
claims we must answer in ourselves, or by another, 
if we would inherit eternal life ; and, I presume, I 
need not stay to prove, that no sinner of Adam's 
race can, in himself, answer its demands. 

It is proper, also, that we should notice here, the 
penalty by which obedience to the law of God is en- 
forced. It corresponds with the law, in its great- 



6S FREE GRACE. 

ness and justice. Death, with all the dreadful con- 
sequences which the Bible attaches to that term, 
when speaking of it as a penalty threatened, is a 
punishment in which will be exhibited, forever, the 
greatness, justice, and majesty of God, and his law. 
We, therefore, as sinners, having incurred this pen- 
alty, the law has a two-fold claim upon us — satis- 
faction and restitution. The law must be satisfied, 
to place us on terms of reconciliation with God: 
and then it requires complete and perfect obedience, 
to entitle us to life. It is equally plain, that no 
finite creature can give to the law the infinite satis- 
faction it requires; and this is one reason that the 
punishment of the wicked must be eternal. 

Con. — Mankind are then, by nature, in a very 
wretched condition. 

Min. — That is very true; and, this is no doubt 
one reason, that so much opposition is manifested 
toward the doctrines of grace. Volumes have 
been written, the Scriptures have been perverted, 
and every expedient has been tried, to prove, that 
the spiritual condition of mankind is not so bad. 
But, the only effect that can result from it, is to 
make sinners more careless. It is always best for 
us to know the worst of our spiritual condition. If 
there were no remedy provided, it would be humane 
to endeavor, as far as possible, to allay fears that 
could be of no avail. But, when God has gracious- 
ly provided a remedy, it is unfaithfulness to the 
Savior, and cruelty to the souls of men, to attempt 
to hide, in the smallest degree, their real condition. 

But this brings us to speak of what God, in infi- 
nite mercy, has done to save us from this wretched 
condition. The Son of God took upon himself to 
answer the claims of the law, in our stead, both as 



FREE GRACE. 69 

it respects obedience and satisfaction, and, in botli 
respects, satisfied its claims to the full. By his obe- 
dience and sufferings, he has wrought out a right- 
eousness, on the ground of which we may be accept- 
ed. And here again, God deals with us on the 
principle of representation. The Savior stood, and 
still stands, as our representative and agent. Our 
sins were imputed to him — that is, they were set to 
his account — he engaged to answer for them — and 
was thus treated as a sinner. On the other hand, 
his righteousness is imputed to us; that is, it is set 
to our account, and we are treated as righteous, on 
the ground of what he has done for us. All this is 
briefly, yet clearly expressed, in our Confession of 
Faith and Catechisms. "Justification is an act of 
God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, 
and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for 
the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and 
received by faith alone." — Shorter Cat., Quest. 33. 

Con. — What do you understand by faith, as you 
use the term in this connection? 

Min. — It is simply the act of the soul in casting 
ourselves upon Christ, and trusting to his righteous- 
ness for salvation — or, as our Catechism expresses 
it, "Faith in Jesus Christ, is a saving grace, where- 
by we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, 
as he is offered to us in the Gospel." — Quest. 86. 
Christ is offered us in the Gospel, as a Savior who has 
fulfilled the law, and satisfied the justice of God in our 
stead; and, we are invited to come, and be saved 
through him. When Ave accept of him as our 
Savior, and cast ourselves upon him for salvation, 
the act of the soul in so doing, is faith ; and hence, 
in this sense, it is called saving faith. It is then 
that the righteousness of Christ is set to our ac- 
count, and made ours through faith. 



70 FREE GRACE, 

Con. — Is faith, then, a necessary condition of our 
salvation ? 

Min, — It is necessary, but can hardly be called a 
condition, in the sense in which the term is general- 
ly used; at least, it is not a meritorious condition. 
There can be no merit in simply accepting a thing 

ered, though it is necessary that we accept it, be- 
iore it can be ours. It is in this sense, that faith is 
necessary to our salvation. We must accept of the 
salvation ottered through Christ: and, in the accept- 
ance of it. God makes it over to us. Hence, the 
Catechism says, it is "received by faith alone" Ana. 
from this, also, you will be able to understand the 
numerous texts of Scripture, which speak of salva- 
tion by faith. "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." — Mark 16; 16. "Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." — Acts 16: 
31, ccc. We are also said to be "justified by faith." 
■ — Rom. 5: 1. "Therefore it is of faith, that it 
might be by grace." — Rom. 4^ 16. "Justified free- 
ly by his grace through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus." — Rom. 3: 24. Besides many other 
passages, which I need not enumerate. 

Con, — But, a difficulty presents itself to my 

id here, respecting the atonement of Christ, 
and which I have heard urged against the doctrine 
of an infinite satisfaction being given, or the full 
penalty of the law endured by him. How could he 
idve an infinite satisfaction in so short a period I He 
did not sutler eternally, nor did he suffer remorse, 
vkc, which was due the sinner. 

Min. — Eternal death, strictly speaking, was no* 
the penalty of the law. It became so from the na- 
ture of the persons incurring it, They are are 



FREE GRACE* 71 

finite, and cannot, give the full satisfaction, in all 
conceivable time; therefore, they must atone for 
their sins eternally. But, an infinite being may 
give infinite value to an atonement in time. Thus r 
the divinity of the Son of God, stamps his atone- 
ment with infinity. We are told he "magnified the 
law, and made it honorable." No finite being could 
thus magnify the law, or show its greatness and dig- 
nity in any clearer light, because it was made for 
them, and all owe it obedience. But, the Son of 
God, being infinite in all the perfections of Deity,, 
did not owe it obedience for himself; and, when he 
made it the rule of his life, and condescended to sat- 
isfy its claims, he "magnified it, and made it honor- 
able," in a light in which it never w^as before. Its 
holiness, justice, majesty? and excellence, are dis- 
played in a more glorious light than they could have 
been, in any other conceivable way. The law is 
more honored and magnified? by the obedience and 
satisfaction rendered to it by the Son of God, than 
it could have been by the perfect obedience, and 
eternal death, of all the intelligent creatures in the 
universe. Hence, the Apostle calls it "the right- 
eousness of God." — Rom. 3: 21, 22, and in several 
other places. It is this obedience and satisfaction 
of the Son of God, that constituted the glorious 
righteousness, on the ground of which, God has offer- 
ed salvation to all who believe on his Son. It is a 
righteousness as great, perfect, holy, infinite, and 
glorious, as God himself — a righteousness, on the 
ground of which, he can be just, and yet the justi- 
fier of every one who will believe, however sinful 
and polluted he may be. Nay, moie: It is a right- 
eousness, on the ground of which he cannot only be 
barely just, but also glorious in its exercise* His 



FREE GRACE. 



stice, holiness, truth, mercy, and every attribute, 
will be forever glorified, in the justification extend- 
ed to every believing sinner, through the glorious 
righteousness of his Son. 

Now, when God has lavished his love and wisdom 
on such a plan of salvation, so glorifying to himself, 
and so suitable for us, how strange, that men, in the 
pride of opinion, will endeavor to find out another ! 
And, when we are offered such a righteousness as 
the ground of our salvation, we may well ask, wheth- 
er any one truly loves the Savior, who will brins: 
up his own faith and obedience, and plead them be- 
fore God, as meriting salvation: as if the glorious 
righteousness of the Son of God were not. sufficient. 

Con. — It cannot be salvation by grace, if we mer- 
it it in any degree ourselves. Any true Christian will 
desire to ascribe all the glory to his Savior. At 
least it so seems to me. It surely contributes in no 
small degree to the enjoyment of the believing sin- 
Tier, to ascribe all the praise to his Savior. 

Min. — Let us now see what the Bible says on 
these points. And, first, let us examine what proofs 
it contains that our sins were imputed to Christ, and 
that he took our place under the law. Isa. 53 : 4, 
5 — "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried 
our sorrows. * * But he was wounded for our trans- 
gressions; lie was bruised for our iniquities; the 
chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with 
his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have 
none astray; we have turned every one to his own 
way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
us ail" Verse 11 — "By his knowledge shall my 
righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear 
their iniquities:' Verse 12 — "He bare the sin of 
many." 2 Cor.: 5, 21 — "He hath made him to b* 



FREE GRACE. 73 

sin for us, # * that we might be made the righteousness 
of God in him." Here, both truths are plainly sta- 
ted, that our sins were set to his account, and his 
righteousness to ours. There is no other conceiva- 
ble sense in which he could be "made sin," or we 
"made the righteousness of God" 1 Pet : 2, 24 — "His 
own self bare oar sins in his own body on the tree ; 
by whose stripes ye are healed." Here, again, both 
truths are thrown together. 1 Pet.: 3, IS — "Christ 
also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the un- 
just, that he might bring us to God." These, with 
all the texts which speak of him as "dying for us," 
and being a "propitiation for us," and a "propitia- 
tion for our sins," (of which kind hundreds might 
be adduced,) prove the doctrine of his substitution 
in our stead, as plainly -as language can prove it. If 
they do not prove that the death of Christ was a 
true and proper sacrifice for sin in our stead, human 
language cannot state it. 

That his righteousness is imputed to us, is taught 
in language equally plain. And, I would observe, 
that all the passages which deny salvation by 
"works," the "deeds of the law," <kc, by necessary 
implication, prove that w^e are saved only by the 
righteousness of Christ. Rom. 3 : 20 — 28 — "There- 
fore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justi- 
fied in his sight. But, now, the righteousness of 
God without the law is manifested, # # even the rio-tit- 
eoukness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, 
unto all, and upon all them that believe. Being justi- 
fied freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be 
a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare 
his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, 
6 



74 FREE GRACE. 

1 say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might; 
be just, and thejustifier of him which believeth on 
Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. 
By what law ? Of ivorks ? Nay ; but by the law 
of faith. Therefore, we conclude, that a man is 
justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." 
Now, is it not strange, that any one pretending to 
common sense, and to be guided by the Bible, would,, 
in the face of all this plain and unequivocal lan- 
guage, uphold salvation by works, in any degree 
whatever? But, farther still, the Apostle reasons 
the case at length, in the fourth chapter ; and, in 
the fifth, in drawing a parallel between Christ and 
Adam, states the doctrine again, with equal plain- 
ness. Rom. 5: IS — "By the righteousness of one r 
the free gift came upon all men into justification of 
life." Verse 19 — "By the obedience of one shall, 
many be made righteous." Chap. 10 : 3, 4 — "But 
they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and go- 
ing about to establish their own righteousness, have 
not submitted themselves to the righteousness of 
God. For Christ is the end of the law for right- 
eousness to every one that believeth." Phil. 3: 9 — 
"That I may win Christ, and be found in him, not 
having mine own righteousness which is of the law, 
but that which fa through the faith of Christ, the 
righteousness which is of God by faith." But, I 
need not multiply quotations, which might be done 
to almost any extent. 

Con. — I find that the Calvinistic doctrines are 
justly styled the doctrines of grace, and yet those 
who deny them, lay strong claims to a system of 
"free grace," and "free salvation." 

Min. — It is only another of their inconsistencies^ 
How can that be free, which is merited or bought by 



GOOD WORKS. 75 

works ? If our good works merit salvation, it is a 
contradiction in terms to call it free. So Paul rea- 
sons, Rom. 4: 4 — "To him that icorketh is the re- 
ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" And, 
further, verse 16 — "Therefore it is of faith, that it 
might be by grace*" And, again: Kom. 11: 6 — 
"If it be of icorks, then it is no more grace" So, 
according to Paul, they can lay no claim to the doc- 
trine of a "free salvation," who maintain that it is 
in any sense by works* 



DIALOGUE IX. 



GOOD WORKS. 



Convert.— -Since our last conversation, I have been 
reflecting upon the doctrine of imputation, and ex- 
amining the Bible; and find, that it is one of its 
plainest doctrines. And> in taking all its features, 
and viewing them together, they present a very 
grand scheme, and show the glorious work of re- 
demption in a light that I think must surely recom- 
mend it to any burdened and heart-broken sinner* 
seeking to escape the wrath of God. And, though 
I feel that it is the only doctrine upon which I can 
safely depend, yet is it not liable to objection, on 
the ground that it leaves good works and holy liv- 
ing entirely out of view? 

Minister. — It only leaves them out of view, as the 
meritcrrious ground of our salvation; but, in every 
other respect, it secures and establishes them. This 



76 GOOD WORKS, 

is the very objection which Paul meets, in the last 
verse of the third chapter of his Epistle to the Ro- 
mans. He lays down, in language that cannot well 
be misunderstood, the truth, that we are "justified 
by faith, without the deeds of the law ;" and, then, 
knowing that the objection you speak of, would be 
urged against it, he anticipates it in the last verse : 
"Do we then make void the law, through faith '?" 
That is, if we by faith, place all our dependence for 
salvation upon the righteousness of Christ, and none 
upon our own obedience to the law, will it not make 
us careless about that obedience, and lead us to think 
that the law r has no farther claims upon us, and thus 
"make void the law," as requiring of us a holy life ? 
But, how does he answer it ? "God forbid : yea. 
we establish the law\" This might be sufficient; 
but, it will not be amiss, to look a little farther, and 
see how faith establishes the law. We have already 
seen how it establishes the law, in answering all its 
claims, through the righteousness of Christ; and, 
that it establishes it also, as the believer's rule of 
life, is equally plain. To show this, I need not go 
farther than your own experience. When you first 
obtained a hope of salvation, through Christ, what 
seemed to be the most prominent feeling of your 
heart ? 

Con. — I was overwhelmed with a sense of the 
love of God, as manifested through the Savior. And, 
when I thought of the Son of God, suffering and 
dying to redeem me from hell, I felt as if it would 
be the joy of my life, to serve him with my whole 
heart. 

Min. — Do you think it possible for any one to 
exercise faith in Christ for salvation, without expe- 
riencing, in some degree, the same feelings of love 
and devotion ? 



GOOD WORKS. 77 

Con. — I do not see how it is possible for any one 
to look to the Son of God as his Savior, without 
loving and desiring to serve him; and, at the same 
time, desiring to be made holy, and conformed to 
his image and example. 

Min. — You have now answered the objection in 
your own experience, which is, in a greater or les^ 
degree, the experience of every true Christian. 
True faith will never be found in the heart of any 
one, without producing its legitimate effects, love 
to Christ, hatred of sin, and a desire after holiness, 
and conformity to the law of God, in all its parts. 
So Paul describes it. Gal 5, 6 — "Faith which 
icorketh by love" And Peter, in Acts 15: 9, as- 
cribes to it the effect of "purifying the heart." And. 
in Acts 26: 18, we are said to be "sanctified by 
faith." So, it is plain, both from Christian experi- 
ence, and from Scripture, that the effect of faith is, 
to produce love and holiness in the heart of the be- 
liever; and thus, his sanctification is carried on. 
Faith is the first act of a regenerated soul; and, 
then, immediately, the work of sanctification com- 
mences, which is carried on through the instrumen- 
tality of faith. It sanctifies, as well as justifies. 
Just as surely as any one has the faith that justifies, 
he has also the faith that sanctifies. It is impossible 
to separate them. It is true, faith is not meritori- 
ous, in either case, but only instrumental ; but, it is 
always just as surely instrumental of the one, as of 
the other. It is absurd to suppose, that any one can 
have faith in Christ : that is, depend upon him for 
salvation, without loving him ; and, it is equally ab- 
surd to suppose, that any one could love him, with- 
out at the same time desiring to obey all his com- 
mands. And, I know not how any true Christian, 



78 



GOOD WORKS. 



who really loves his Savior, and understands his own 
heart, can plead the objection, that an entire de- 
pendence upon Christ for salvation, weakens his 
sense of obligation, and "makes void the law." It 
is a reflection cast upon true religion, unworthy of 
a Christian. 

All this is plainly taught in our Confession of 
Faith, as well as the Bible. Chap. 11, sec. 2 — 
"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his 
righteousness, is the alone instrument of justifica- 
tion : yet, it is not alone, in the person justified, but 
is ever accompanied with all other saving graces ; 
and, is no dead faith, but worketh by love." Again , 
chap. 16, sec. 2 — "These good works, done in obedi- 
ence to God's commandments \ are the fruits and ev- 
idences of a true and lively faith," &c. And, that 
faith should, and does produce these effects, is surely 
a dictate of common sense. Let any one have true 
faith, and then holiness of heart and life is a certain 
consequence. 

Con. — But, is faith not sometimes to be under- 
stood in a more extended sense, than simply depend- 
ing on, and trusting in, Christ for salvation? 

Min. — Though this is its principal act, it ex- 
tends to, and acts upon, every thing that God has 
revealed. As it is expressed in our Confession, chap. 
14, sec. 2 — "By this faith, a Christian believeth to 
be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the 
authority of God himself, speaking therein; and 
acteth differently upon that which each particular 
passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedience to 
the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and 
embracing the promises of God, for this life, and 
that which is to come," &c. The Apostle also says, 
By faith we know the worlds w r ere made, &c, 



^OOD WORKS. 79 

And, again, "He that cometh to God, must believe 
that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that 
diligently seek him." But, faith in all these acts, is 
subordinate, and dependent for its right exercise up- 
on the principal act. It is only when we are brought 
to look to God through Christ, that we have right 
views of his character as he is revealed in his word, 
and admit with the heart all his claims. Then we 
see, in a true light, what he says of the evil of sin, 
the justness of our condemnation, and the freeness 
•of his mercy and grace in our justification. Then, 
when we look into his word, all its blessed truths 
come home to our hearts, with a point and clearness 
before unknown. Its threatenings and promises, 
precepts and exhortations, have a peculiar force and 
pungency, which tell upon our conduct and pursuits, 
and produce earnest desires for sincere and constant 
obedience. "With the heart, man believeth unto 
righteousness." Thus faith secures holiness ; and, 
view it as we may, either in its principal act of de- 
pendence on Christ for salvation, or in its cordial ac- 
ceptance and approval of all the other truths of 
God's word, it "establishes the law" as the great 
rule of obedience, in conformity to which the be- 
liever strives to live. '"Working by love," which is 
"the fulfilling of the law," it secures this glorious re- 
sult, wherever it is found in sincerity and truth. 

Thus, the plan of salvation, exhibits the wisdom 
of God in all its features. It saves lost sinners, 
transforms them from sin, and secures the practice 
of holiness, yet, in a way that excludes boasting, or 
self-glorification, in the smallest degree, and gives 
all the praise to God. 

Con. — But, is there not some sense, in which faith 
and holiness commend us to God? 



so 



GOOD WORKS. 



Min. — They commend us to God as obedient 
children, striving after conformity to his law, ana 
reflecting his image. Eph. 5 : 1, 2 — "Be ye follow- 
ers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as 
Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us." 
Of such Paul says, Rom. 2 : 29 — "Whose praise is 
not of men, but of God." Indeed, the Scriptures 
every where teach, that good works* by which I 
mean all the graces of piety brought out into active 
operation, are pleasing to God; and, only in their 
performance, can we expect his blessing, and the 
approving smiles of his countenance. And this is 
said to be one grand object of salvation. Tit. 2: 14 
— "That he might purify to himself a peculiar peo- 
ple zealous of good works." Besides, they are evi- 
dences of the sincerity of our faith, both to God and 
man. It is only in their performance, that we can 
"let our light shine," and exhibit to the world the 
excellency of that religion we profess. They are 
the true tests of Christian love ; and, even in the 
sight of God, prove our faith to be of the right kind, 
As he said to Abraham, "Now I know that thou 
fearest God." And, the Apostle James tells us, that 
"by his works his faith was made perfect." — James 
2 : 22. That is, it was proved to be of the right 
kind. 

Con. — But, does not James say, in the same con- 
nection, that Abraham was justified by works? And 
how is this to be reconciled with the language of 
Paul? 

Min. — The most common interpretation given to 
the language of James is, that he was speaking of 
our justification in the sight of men. And, it is true, 
that it is only by good works, that we can sustain a 
christian character. But, the Apostle evidently 



GOOD WORKS. 81 

speaks of justification in the sight of God; for, he 
says, in the 14th verse, "can faith save him?" The 
doctrines called Antinomianism, were prevalent in 
the days of the Apostle, which taught that the gospel 
released believers from obedience to the law, and it 
is very evident, that it was against this that James 
was writing, and also, no doubt, to refute the doc- 
trine that justifying faith was a mere speculative 
belief, which produced no sanctifying influence upon 
the heart. In verse 14, he says, "what doth it profit 
my brethren, though a man say he have faith and 
have not works, can faith save him V 9 That is, can 
that kind of faith save him ? In the original it is 
"he pistis," the faith, or the kind of faith mentioned. 
In the 19th verse he says, "Thou believest there is 
one God; thou dost well; the devils also believe 
and tremble." From this it is very plain, that the 
faith of which he is speaking, and which he says 
cannot save a man, is the same that the devils have; 
and, he adds, in the following verses, "Wilt thou 
know, O vain man, that faith without works is 
dead? Was not Abraham, our father, justified by 
works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the 
altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his 
works, and, by woiks was faith made perfect? And 
the Scripture w r as fulfilled which saith, Abraham 
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for 
righteousness. Ye see, then, how that by works a 
man is justified, and not by faith only." The Scrip- 
ture, which the Apostle says was fulfilled by Abra- 
ham offering his son, is Gen. 15 : 6. "And he be- 
lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for 
righteousness." The faith that Abraham exercised 
in this instance, was belief and confidence in tin- 
promise that he should have a son, and including the 



82 GOOD WORKS. 

promise of a Savior. It was by this act of faith, 
that Abraham was justified, as Paul tells us in Rom. 
4: 3, 10, 11 — " Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness." "How was it 
then reckoned ? When he was in circumcision, or 
in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in un- 
circumcision. And he received the sign of circum- 
cision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had, yet being uncircumcised" 

Here, both Apostles are plainly together, in teach- 
ing that Abraham was justified by that act of faith. 
But, this was more than twenty years before the 
offering of his son, in which James says this scrip- 
ture was fulfilled. Now, will any one pretend, that 
the Apostle intended to teach, that Abraham was 
not justified until he offered his son? This would 
be inconsistent both with scripture and common 
sense, and the language of the Apostle himself. In 
what sense, then, was this scripture fulfilled, in the 
offering of his son ? Plainly in this, that he thereby 
proved his faith to be of the right kind, a genuine 
faith of the gospel, working by love, and producing 
obedience to the commands of God. There is no 
other conceivable sense in which it could be fulfilled. 
Neither can we suppose, that the Apostle intended 
to teach, that true evangelical faith is ever found 
without good works ; and, unless we deny a plain 
passage of scripture, written by Moses, and quoted 
by both James and Paul, we must conclude that he 
only intended to teach, that we cannot be justified 
by a "dead faith," which is "without works ;'-' and, 
that a believing, active faith, which "works by love 
and purifies the heart," is necessary to our justifica- 
tion. For, he expressly says, that "Abraham's faith 
was perfected by his works," that is, he showed 



GOOD WORKS. 83 

thereby that it was not a dead faith. Therefore, 
we are "justified by works, and not by faith only," 
inasmuch as they are the evidence and certain 
fruits of a justifying faith. A faith that does not 
produce them, is not only useless, but is worse than 
useless. It is a cheat, an injury to ourselves and 
others. When we, in the exercise of faith, confide 
ourselves to Christ for salvation, we do it upon his 
own terms, one of which is, to do whatsoever he com- 
mands. To do this, is not only the obligation, but 
the desire, of every one who is truly united to him 
by faith. He who has the good works which spring 
from true faith is justified, but he who has them 
not, is not justified, for they are inseparable. "With- 
out holiness no man shall see the Lord." 

Con. — But, is there not some sense, in which our 
good works merit reward? 

Min. — They will be rewarded; but, it will still 
be of grace. Christ tells us, Luke 17: 10 — "When 
ye shall have done all these things which are com- 
manded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we 
have done that which was our duty to do." Still 
they will all be graciously rewarded. Matt. 10 : 42 
— "A cup of cold water given to a disciple in the 
name of a disciple, shall not lose its reward." Mo- 
ses, we are told, Heb. 11 : 26, "had respect unto the 
recompense of reward." We need not fear that 
God will overlook any thing, done with love to him, 
through faith in his son. It is revealed as one great 
mgredient in our happiness in Heaven, that "our 
works shall follow us." — Rev. 14: 13. We need 
not fear to expect too much at the hand of God. 
Only let us expect it in the right way, "not of debt, 
but of grace." Our works follow us in Heaven. 
They do not go before, to open the heavenly gates, 



84 



INABILITY. 



or gain us access there. That is done by our Sa- 
vior. But they follow us, and shall be taken ac- 

int of by our Savior. "I was an hungered, and 
ye gave me meat, 1 ' &c. And, whilst we shall re- 
joice in the gracious and glorious reward, which he 
condescends to bestow upon our poor service, the 
burden of our song shall be, "to the praise of the glo- 
ry of his grace" — Eph. 1:6. 

Con. — There is a passage of Scripture that I have 
met with some where, which says, "whatsoever is 
not of faith, is sin :" which I found difficult to un- 
derstand; but, I think, I now begin to see its mean- 
ing. As faith is the foundation of the other graces, 
nothing is acceptable to God, which does not flow 
from right feelings. But, still, is there nothing good 
in the outward morality, and upright conduct of 
those, who are out of Christ? 

Min. — This involves the doctrine of ability, or, 
what a man can do, and what he cannot do, in his 
natural state, which we will consider at our next in- 
terview. 



DIALOGUE X. 

INABILITY. 



Convert. — In examining the Confession of Faith, 

since our last interview, I find, in chapter 9, sec. 3, 

the following language, respecting man's inability: 

"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly 

■a ability of will to any spiritual good, accom- 



INABILITY. S3 

panying salvation; so, as a natural man, being alto- 
gether averse from that which is good, and dead in 
-:in, is not able, by his own strength, to convert him- 
self, or prepare himself thereunto." 

But the Bible commands men to repent and be- 
lieve, and to make to themselves new hearts, &c. 
Now, is there not a seeming inconsistency, in com- 
manding what there is no ability to perform? 

Minuter. — There can be no inconsistency in com- 
manding any one to the extent of his obligation. 
Whatever is the duty of any one, God has a right 
to command, regardless of inability, when that ina- 
bility is brought on by the sinner himself, and is in 
itself wrong. It is surely the duty of all to love 
God. It is a plain dictate of common sense, that 
when any one has done wrong, he ought to repent 
of it. But, how can he repent of it, if he loves the 
wrong? We know that all men naturally love sin, 
and hate God. How can they repent of sin, while 
they love it? or, how can they love God, while 
they hate him? This is the "inability of will," of 
which the Confession speaks. The will is influenced 
in choosing and refusing, by the state of the heart. 
It is this that always gives weight to the motives 
presented. Whilst the heart is filled with enmity 
to God, all motives to love him are presented in 
vain. Now, the simple question is, can a man 
change his own heart? What resources has he 
within himself, that he can bring to bear upon the 
deep rooted enmity of his heart, that will produce 
such a change in the inner man, as to fill him with 
love for that which he hates? The only faculty that 
could possibly have any such effect, is the under- 
standing, or judgment; but, it is so darkened, that 
it can have no proper conception of holy and spir- 



M INABILITY, 

itual things. "The natural man." says Paul, 1 Cor,. 
w 2: 14, "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 

God, far they arc foolishness unto him ; neither can he- 
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'* 
The Apostle is contrasting the "spiritual" and "na- 
tural man,*' that is, the regenerate and unregener- 
, and this is what he tells us of the unregenerate. 
And, the language he uses, is much stronger than 
that used in our Confession. "The natural man re- 
ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." He 
rejects them. All the motives by which their ac- 
ceptance may be urged, are entirely without avail. 
And why ? Because "they are foolishness unto him" 
— he has no proper conception of them. "Neither 
can he know them." He can have no proper un- 
derstanding of their value, excellence, or necessity, 
"because they are spiritually discerned." In order 
to see them aright, and appreciate them, he must be 
made a "spiritual man." His understanding must 
be enlightened, and his affections changed. How 
any one can take a plain common sense view of this 
passage of Scripture alone, in its obvious sense, and 
yet contend for the doctrine of full ability, I am at 
a loss to see. Yet, it is equally plain, that those 
very things to which the "natural man," is thus 
wholly disinclined, he is under the strongest obliga- 
tion to perform. It is his duty to love God with all 
his heart, and to "receive the things of the Spirit of 
God," and practice upon them — to repent of his sins, 
and turn to God. Hence, it is perfectly consistent 
for God to command the sinner thus to do. It 
would be giving up the claims of his law, if he did 
not. 

Con. — But, is not the inability in the case, incon- 
sistent with the obligation? 



INABILITY, 87 

Mill. — The idea that ability is the measure of 
obligation, is not uncommon; and, of late, has been 
widely propagated, as an axiom in morals and theol- 
ogy, and is hailed by many as a new discovery,, 
that is to clear up the knotty points of perfect free- 
dom of will, and absolute dependence on God. It 
is boldly asserted, that man is under no obligation 
to do any thing, for which he has not full and per- 
fect ability in himself. But this position, is one of 
the most glaring absurdities to be found in the whole 
catalogue of errors, now afloat. If inability can- 
cels obligation, Satan is under no obligation to love 
God, and his fiendish enmity to God and immortal 
souls, is no sin. If I murder the head of a helpless 
family, I am only accountable for the murder, and 
not for the wretchedness and misery that I thus 
bring upon the family, Avhich I have no power to 
alleviate. My inability to soothe the sorrows, and 
alleviate the wants of the widow and orphans, can- 
cels my obligation. There is no escape from such 
dreadful consequences of the doctrine, except its 
abettors will go one step farther back, and say, that 
God is the author of man's inability to obey his 
commands. This, I presume, none will dare do. 
Man's inability is his own fault; and, to pretend that 
it frees him from obligation, subverts all moral gov- 
ernment. Sin, then, is its own apology. The sin- 
ner can stand up boldly, and say, I am not able, in 
myself, to love God I hate him so, that I cannot 
love him ; therefore, I am not under obligation to 
love him. It lifts the sinner above the law of God. 
He requires obedience: the sinner disables him- 
self; and, therefore, he is not bound to obey. Re- 
bellion against God is, then, the only sure road to 
independence. But, I need not follow such absur- 



88 



INABILITY. 



dities farther. You can see clearly, that man's ina- 
bility to obey the law of God, can, in no sense, free 
him from obligation. 

Con. — But, has not man some kind of ability ? I 
have some where, in the course of my reading, met 
with the doctrine, that man is naturally able to love 
and serve God, but morally unable — that is, he could, 
if he would. 

Min. — That the sinner's inability is moral, is ad- 
mitted on all hands; and, that it is of such a nature, 
that he could obey, if he would, is not, I believe, de- 
nied by any. But, this is the same as saying, he 
could love God, if he loved him. The unwilling- 
ness to obey — the aversion to God, and holiness — is 
the inability in the case. This is the moral state of 
the soul; it is wickedly unwilling, and therefore un- 
able, without a gracious change. Until such a 
change is effected, the sinner never will love God; 
and, in this sense, using the language of the Bible, 
we say he cannot, that is, there is no cause to pro- 
duce the effect. Christ says, "no man can come to 
me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw 
him." And, again, he shows the nature of this ina- 
bility: "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have 
life." 

If those who contend that the sinner has a natu- 
ral ability, would tell us plainly what they mean by 
it, and what it amounts to, w r e w r ould know better 
how to answer them. If they mean by it, that he 
has all his natural faculties, we admit it. But, if 
these are not a sufficient cause to produce the effect, 
why contend that they constitute an ability to do 
that which they cannot do? Man has ability to 
love, and therefore has ability to love God, is about 
the amount of their reasoning. But, this is about 



INABILITY, 89 

as wise as to say, that because it is the nature of 
water to flow, it, therefore, has a natural ability to 
flow up hill. This strikes you as an amusing absur- 
dity; but, it is not a whit more absurd, than to con- 
tend, that because man has all his natural faculties, 
that, therefore, he has a natural ability to love God. 
The nature of water, is a cause just as adequate to 
the production of the effect in the one case, as the 
nature of man in the other. All his affections and 
inclinations are turned away from God, and flow in 
an opposite direction. 

Con. — But, we daily see men of the world living 
in some degree according to the commands of God. 
We see honesty, sobriety, and in short, morality in 
all its moral beauty, exhibited in the lives of unre- 
generate men. Does not this contradict the idea of 
a total inability to do good? 

Min. — Man has an ability to do many things that 
are good in themselves, and, indeed, to do any thing, 
predicable of his nature as man, which he chooses to 
do, or, in other words, that he is willing to do. As 
it respects outward morality, many motives may be 
brought to bear, which will induce men to live in 
accordance with its rules, viz. a respect for public 
opinion, a desire of reputation, &c, — and, not unfre- 
quently, a hope, that thereby they may recommend 
themselves to God, and finally escape hell. Some- 
times, indeed, it is their enmity to God and religion, 
that induces them to live lives of strict morality, 
that thereby they may compare with the Christian, 
w r hom they watch with an eagle eye, and endeavor 
to magnify his failures, in order to bring reproach 
upon religion. In all these instances, however, it is 
easy to see, that "God is not in all their thoughts." 
Their hearts are still alienated from him, and they 
7 



50 



INABILITY 



refuse to acknowledge his authority. They 
morally, not because God has required it, but from 
some other selfish motive. They refuse to pray, 
neglect and violate the Sabbath, refuse to repent and 
confess the Son of God, neglect, or oppose religion, 
and, in short, exhibit very plainly, the enemity of 
their hearts to God. It is true, they will not admit 
that they hate God, and perhaps think they do not j 
but, if they hate religion and holiness, they hate 
God, for this is his character. They cannot hate 
the one without hating the other, or love the one 
without loving the other. If any one love God, he 
will love religion, and yield himself in obedience te 
its dictates ; and, if he hate religion, he hates God, 
They are inseparable. Hence, Paul says, Rom. 8: 
7 — "The carnal mind is enmity against God : for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be." The Apostle, you perceive, couples the hating 
of God and his law together, as characteristic of 
every unregenerate man. Then,- while the heart is 
thus at enmity w r ith God, the strictest outward mo- 
rality is nothing in his sight, for he tells us himself ; . 
"The Lord looketh on the heart." Thus you per- 
ceive, that the doctrine of man's inability to change 
his own heart, and perform acceptable obedience, is 
not inconsistent with the fact, that unregenerate 
men are often moral in their lives, 

Con. — But, does it not destroy the distinction be- 
tween right and wrong, to maintain, that the moral 
man does no more to recommend him to God, than 
the grossly wicked ? 

Min. — It is not meant that they are both viewed 
precisely in the same light. Christ commends the 
Pharisees for their morality, but reproves them for 
neglecting "-the weightier matters of the law, judg- 



INABILITY. 91 

merit, mercy, and faith;" and tells them, also, that 
they could not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, 
or be accepted of God, because, in all their boasted 
morality, their hearts were not right. "All these 
things ye do, that ye may be seen of men. Verily, 
I say unto you, ye have your reward." God has so 
arranged, in his providence and government, that 
morality and amiability are rewarded. Or, perhaps, 
it would be better to say, that the reward which we 
most earnestly seek, shall be obtained. The supreme 
desire of the Pharisees, was to obtain a high reli- 
gious reputation, and they obtained it. "They had 
their reward" If a man wishes to obtain the char- 
acter of honesty, and gain the confidence of his 
neighbors, let him pursue the proper course, and he 
will obtain it — "he has his reward." If a child love 
his parents, and wishes to retain their affection and 
confidence, he has but to pursue the proper course, 
and he obtains it — "he has his reward." But, still 
it is true, in all such cases, that, "to be seen of men," 
is the ruling motive, and "God is not in all their 
thoughts." They would pursue the same course, if 
God had given no law; and, as it respects his re- 
quirements, their hearts are still in a state of rebel- 
lion. They reject Christ, and the authority of God, 
altogether. And^ as there are different degrees of 
punishment in the future world, they may not, per- 
haps, be "beaten with as many stripes" as the gross- 
ly wicked; yet, they are equally far from salvation, 
until the enmity of their hearts be changed, and 
they are led to the practice of morality and reli- 
gion, from love to God. 

This may be illustrated, on the simple principles 
of common justice, and common sense. In a gang 
of pirates, we may find many things that are good in 



92 



INABILITY. 



themselves. Though they are in wicked rebellion* 
against the laws of the Government, they have 
their own laws and regulations, which they obey 
strictly. We may find among them courage and 
fidelity, with many other things that will recom- 
mend them, as pirates. They may do many things, 
too, which the laws of the Government require, but 
they are not done because the Government has so 
required, but in obedience to their own regulations. 
For instance, the Government requires honesty, and 
they may be strictly honest, one with another, in 
their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. 
Yet, as it respects the government, and the general 
principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked 
dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that whilst they con- 
tinue in their rebellion, they can do nothing to rec- 
ommend them to the government, as citizens. Their 
first step must be, to give up their rebellion, acknowl- 
edge their allegiance to the government, and sue 
for mercy. So, all men, in their natural state, are 
rebels against God ; and, though they may do many 
things which the law of God requires, and which 
will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done 
with reference to God and his law. But, the regu- 
lations of society, respect for public opinion, self-in- 
terest, their own character in the sight of the w r orld, 
or some other worldly, or wicked motive, reigns 
supremely ; and God, to whom they owe their heart 
and lives, is forgotten ; or, if thought of at all, his 
claims are wickedly rejected, his counsels spurn ed, 
and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedi- 
ence. Now, it is plain, that while the heart con- 
tinues in this state, the man is a rebel against God, 
and can do nothing to recommend himself to his fa- 
vor. The first step, is to give up his rebellion, re- 



INABILITY. 93 

pent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and 
reconciliation, through the Savior. This he is un- 
willing to do, until he is made willing. He loves 
his sins, and will continue to love them, until his 
heart is changed. 

You can now see, clearly, the force of the pas^ 
sage of Scripture, which you spoke of in our last 
conversation — "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" — 
Rom. 14: 23. The same truth is stated, in Rom. 
8: 8 — "They that are in the flesh, cannot please 
God." And, Heb. 11 : 6— "Without faith, it is im- 
possible to please him." 

Con. — Are we, then, to conclude, that all the 
good actions of unregenerate men, are sins? 

Min. — They are not positively sinful, in them- 
selves, but sinful from defect. They lack the princi- 
ple which alone can make them righteous in the 
sight of God. In the case of the pirates, it is easy 
to see, that all their actions are sin against the gov- 
ernment. While they continue pirates, their sail- 
ing, mending, or rigging their vessel, and even their 
eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the 
government, as they are only so many expedients 
to enable them to continue their piratical career, 
and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sin- 
ners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates every 
thing in the sight of God, even their most ordinary 
occupations ; for, the plain, unequivocal language 
of God, is, "The ploughing of the wicked, is sin." 
Prov. 21 : 4. 

Con. — This places all men, by nature, in a very 
dreadful condition — their whole life being nothing 
but sin — a "treasuring up of wrath against the day 
of wrath" — and no ability to help themselves. 

Min. — It places them entirely dependent upon the 



94 INABILITY. 

sovereign grace and mercy of their offended God, 
And this, according to the Bible, is their true condi- 
tion. Such exhibitions of the true state of man- 
kind, are, I know, offensive to unregenerate men 
generally; and, many have tried to find out a sys- 
tem of doctrines, more palatable to the popular 
mind. But, all such attempts are unfaithful to 
God, and the souls of men. That teacher of reli- 
gion has but a poor errand to the sacred desk, who 
attempts thus to "sew pillows under the arms" of 
his hearers, as Ezekiel describes the effeminate 
teachers in his day. It is an attempt to "heal the 
hurt of the sinner slightly* and crying peace, where 
there is no peace." His lost, ruined, and helpless 
state, needs to be constantly set before him; and, 
until he is brought to feel it, he will never seek help 
where alone it is to be found. 

Con. — But, as the sinner's inability consists in his 
wicked love of sin, and unwillingness to love God, 
has he not some power over his will, that might be 
exercised in determining his choice of God and ho- 
liness 1 

Mm. — I have already remarked, that the will in 
choosing, is influenced by motives, and the motives 
preponderate, according to the state of the hearty 
or moral taste. But, perhaps, it would be useful for 
us to look at this a little farther, before proceeding 
to the arguments drawn from the Bible respecting 
man's inability. Both of which, we will consider* 
at any time you may have leisure. 



CTREE WILL. 



DIALOGUE XL 



FREE WILL. 



9b 



Minister. — The doctrine which we proposed to 
consider this evening, namely, the powers of the 
will, is one that involves a great many abstruse 
questions, which it would not, perhaps, be expedient 
to enter upon largely at present But, I will endeav- 
or to give you a plain, common sense view of it, if 
I can, without any metaphysical subtleties. 

Convert. — You spoke, at our last interview, of an 
inability of will ; but, is this consistent with freedom 
of will? Is not the will capable of acting freely, 
and of choosing what it pleases ? 

Min. — Certainly.; but, this is not the question 
at issue. It is admitted, on all hands, that the will 
is free, and does choose what it pleases. But, the 
question is, whether the will has power to choose 
contrary to what it pleases, or any thing that is in 
direct opposition to what it does choose. It is ad- 
mitted on all hands, that choice is made according 
to the highest pleasure, or strongest inclination ; 
and, the point to be considered is, whether it has 
power to choose, in direct hostility to its strongest 
inclinations, an$ whether these strongest inclina- 
tions do not always operate in determining choice. 

Con. — But, do not men often choose that which 
is contrary to their desires and inclinations ? 

Min. — They often choose what is in some re- 
spects disagreeable ; but, there is always some other 
motive, which, at the time, influences the choice, 
which, in other circumstances, would not be made. 
For instance, a man may, and can eat wormwood, 



06 FREE WILL. 

but, he will not do it, unless there be some induce^ 
ment presented, which influences his choice in so 
doing, and makes it, for the time, his strongest in- 
clination. But, then, the question still remains, that? 
while his ruling inclination, or pleasure, continues 
to choose as it does, that which, upon the whole, 
seems most desirable, is there any faculty, or power 
in the will, to act contrary ? — that is, is there any 
cause adequate to the production of such an effect? 
There can be no effect without an adequate cause ; 
and, when there is a cause adequate to the produc- 
tion of an effect, there must be some greater cause 
to prevent that effect, or to produce its opposite. 
Now, it is admitted on all hands, that motives and 
inclinations are the causes which operate in produ- 
cing the acts of the will, in choosing and refusing; 
and, that the will always does act in the way in 
which the strongest inclinations lead — but, it is still 
contended, by the advocates of the human ability 
scheme, that there is in the will a power to choose, 
in opposition to its strongest inclination. But, 
where is their proof? They admit, that though 
there is such a power, it never acts. Then it is ad- 
mitted, that it is not a cause adequate to the pro- 
duction of the effect. Why, then, contend for it ? 
Of what use is it ? It produces no effects in morals 
or religion. It only serves the purpose of some phi- 
losophizing theologians, to bolster up their system, 
which they find cannot stand without it. But, let 
us look at it. A man in certain circumstances, with 
motives operating without, and inclinations within, 
is induced to act in a certain way. He chooses that 
to which his strongest inclinations lead him. Here 
are cause and effect. Now, if, under the same cir- 
cumstances, and with the same inclinations, his will 



Free will. S7 

has a power to choose the contrary of what it 
does, he either makes the choice, or he does not. If 
he makes the contrary choice, then his will chooses 
contrary to what it does choose, which is a self-con- 
tradiction. If he does not make the contrary 
choice, then there is no cause adequate to the pro- 
duction of the effect, and the power of the will to 
choose contrary to its choice, amounts to just noth- 
ing at all. 

Con. — But, might he not choose otherwise, if the 
will were so inclined? 

Min. — Certainly ; but, that is not the point. I 
am endeavoring to show you, that it always does 
act as it is inclined; but, the point is, has it power to 
choose contrary to its choice, whether it be inclined 
or not, and in spite of all opposing inclinations? 
Scales will turn in an opposite direction, if there be 
a preponderating weight — a cause adequate to the 
effect — but, without it, they Avill not. No more 
will the will act in opposition to its strongest incli- 
nations and motives. The cause in the one case, is 
just as adequate to the production of the effect, as 
in the other. 

Thus, the faculty of will, in good and bad men, 
exerts their volitions ; but, the character of these 
volitions, is determined under given motives, not by 
the natural faculty itself, abstractly considered, but 
by the moral state of the heart ; and, if it be in a 
certain moral state, it cannot be a property of the 
will to put forth choices of an opposite moral char- 
acter, for it is admitted that the heart always rules 
the choices of the will; and, consequently, you per- 
ceive, we are brought back to our former conclu- 
sion, that man, in his natural state, is unable to love 
God, and put forth holy exercises, because his strong- 



98 FREE WILL. 

est inclinations and desires lead in an opposite direc- 
tion. He is wickedly unwilling, and, therefore, un- 
able. He chooses sin deliberately and freely, and 
always will, until a gracious change is wrought by 
the Spirit of God. "Yerily, verily, I say unto thee, 
except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God/' — John 3: 3. 

Con. — But, when motives are presented, and the 
will chooses or refuses according to the moral state 
of the inner man, without any power in itself to 
put forth choices contrary to that moral state, is the 
doctrine not liable to objection, on the ground thai 
the motives are often presented under circumstances 
over which the man has no control ] 

Mm, — It is true, that the motives are furnished in 
the providence of God. The murderer is kept in 
life, in God's providence, and is indebted to God for 
strength to kill his victim, and also for the opportu- 
nity. Joseph's brethren could not have cast him 
into the pit, or sold him, if it had not been so ar- 
ranged in the providence of God, that he was sent 
to them. In this way they were furnished with the 
external motive. And, I know the objection is 
urged, that if God furnish the motives, he is in this 
sense the author of sin. But, of all the objections 
of errorists, this is among the most siliy, that because 
God places man in circumstances, and gives him op- 
portunities to do good, because he chooses to pervert 
them to evil purposes, God is, therefore, blameable 
with his sin. 

A man makes a musical instrument, with the de- 
sign that it may delight him with its sweet, harmo- 
nious sounds; and, when it is made, he finds it 
•'good." It answers the purposes for which it was 
designed, perfectly : but, from some cause, it be- 



FREE WILL. 99 

comes damaged, and then, under the same process 
which formerly produced harmony, there is now 
nothing but discord. Now, it is plain, that though 
he is the author of the sound, he is not the author 
of the discord. That arises from the defect of the 
instrument. And, for certain reasons that may op- 
erate, he may keep it in order externally, and touch 
its strings, knowing that it will produce discord, and 
still not be the author of it. So God keeps in order 
the system of the world, in all its various operations 
of life and action ; and, his providence with men, is 
all so arranged, that if they were holy, the external 
motives he presents, would at all times produce good 
results. Had not Joseph's brethren indulged a wick- 
ed hatred toward him, his coming to them would 
have afforded an opportunity of doing good to him 
and their aged father. But, their wicked hearts 
perverted it into an occasion of evil. 

Con. — But, does not this doctrine of inability 
tend to make sinners more careless ? Will they not 
say, that as they cannot change their own hearts, 
ail efforts to seek God, and all striving after holiness, 
are useless? 

Min. — I believe it has just the opposite tendency. 
It is because the sinner does not feel his lost and 
helpless condition, that he remains careless. There 
is not a careless sinner in the world, who is not a 
full believer in the doctrine of perfect ability. It is 
his resolution to repent and turn to God at some fu- 
ture time, that keeps him easy; and, he feels per- 
fectly competent to the task. He has no sense 
whatever of his absolute dependence upon God. He 
believes that it is something that he can attend to 
at any time, and at some convenient time he will do 
it. And, just in proportion as you strengthen that 



100 FREE WILL. 

belief, you increase his carelessness, and lull him to 
sleep on the awful brink of eternal ruin. It is only 
when he is brought to feel his entire helplessness 
and dependence upon sovereign grace, that he will 
seek help where it is to be found. Then, and not 
till then, will he rejoice in the truth, that his "help 
is laid upon one who is mighty to save." It is the 
hiding of this wholesome truth, that has tended to 
make so many fitful professors of religion, and made 
religion, with many, to consist in a kind of spasmod- 
ic, or occasional action. They are taught, that if 
they purpose to serve God, that is all the change 
they need; and, that this is as easily done, as to 
raise the hand. They may, and often do change the 
outward purpose ; but, if the heart be not changed 
by divine grace, they will be sure to change back 
again. "He that striveth for the mastery, is not 
crowned, unless he strive lawfully." And, the on- 
ly lawful way for a sinner to strive, is with a feel- 
ing of dependence on God, and with the earnest 
prayer, "Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and re- 
new a right spirit within me." 

Con. — I believe it is always best for us all, to know 
the worst of our spiritual condition. 

Min. — Let us now look at what the Bible says, 
on the doctrine of inability. And, I would remark, 
in the first place, that the doctrine is plainly taught 
in all those passages which speak of the necessity of 
regeneration. John 3 : 3 — "Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God — and, 7 — 
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born 
again" — with many other passages, which I need 
not enumerate. 

Again, it is taught in all those passages which as- 
cribe this work directly to the Spirit of God. John 



FREE WILL. 101 

3 : 5 — "Except a man be born of water, and of the 
Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Acts 
16 : 14 — "The Lord opened her heart, that she at- 
tended [to the things which were spoken of Paul." 
1. Thes. 1: 5 — "Our Gospel came not unto you in 
word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost." 
l.Cor. 3, 6, and 7 — "I have planted, Apollos wa- 
tered, but God gave the increase. So, then, neither 
is he that planteth any thing, neither he that water- 
eth, but God thatgiveth the increase." Phil. 2 : 13 
— "It is God that worketh in you, both to will, and 
to do." Ezek. 36 : 26, and 27— "A new heart also 
will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within 
you; and, I will take away the stony heart out of 
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. 
And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you 
to walk in my statutes." John 1 : 13— "Which 
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of God." But, I need 
not enumerate farther. The Bible every where as- 
cribes the work of producing holiness in the heart of 
a sinner, to the direct agency of God. And, there 
is not a single word, or passage, which ascribes it to 
the sinner himself. 

Con. — I do not recollect ever to have seen, or 
heard it asserted, that any passage of Scripture di- 
rectly asserts, that the sinner is the agent in his own 
change of heart : but, it is inferred from the fact, 
that he is commanded to do it. 

Min. — That argument is based upon the false as- 
sumption, that there is nothing duty, which there is 
not full ability to perform ; the absurdity of which, 
I think, I clearly showed you, in our last conversa- 
tion. But, let us look at those passages of the Bi- 
ble, which assert the doctrine of inability, in plain 



102 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

and unequivocal language. John 6 : 44 — "No man 
can come to me, except the Father which hath sent 
me, draw him." Eph. 2 : 1 — "You hath he quick- 
ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." 1. 
Cor. 2: 14 — "The natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness 
unto him ; neither can he know them, because they 
are spiritually discerned." Rom. 8: 7 — "The car- 
nal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject 
to the law of God, neither indeed can be." These. 
with other passages, quoted in our former conversa- 
tion, "They that are in the flesh, cannot please 
God," &c, present the doctrine in language that 
cannot be softened down, without destroying their 
sense altogether. 



DIALOGUE XII. 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 



Convert.— Since our last conversation, I have 
been reflecting on the views you presented respect- 
ing human ability, and feel constrained to believe, 
that man in his natural state is not able, of himself. 
to change his own heart. Indeed, it is so plain a 
truth, that I now rather wonder that it should be 
controverted by any one who has thoroughly consid- 
ered the subject. I find even the "doctrinal tracts" 
of the Methodist church, teach it in plain language. 
On page 134, it is said, that "no sinner can believe r 
but by the almighty power of God." But, I find it 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 10«> 

also stated in the same connection, that God gives 
to all men "sufficient grace" to enable them to be- 
lieve, and consequently "their death lies at their 
own door." And, my Methodist neighbor con- 
tends, that if this were not done, God could not be 
sincere in offering salvation to all men. 

Minister. — That is the most common doctrine of 
those who reject the doctrines of grace, respecting 
regeneration, effectual calling, &c; and, you might 
have observed, that the "doctrinal tracts," in the 
same connection, teach that this is necessary, not 
only "to maintain the sincerity of God," but also 
"to vindicate his equity at the great day, in con- 
demning the impenitent." I am at a loss to know f 
how any amount of grace short of regeneration, can 
be called "sufficient." If it does not change the 
sinner's moral tastes and inclinations, it is not suffi- 
cient to enable him to believe and repent. How 
can he repent of sin, when he still loves it ? There 
never was, and never w r ill be, a single instance of a 
true penitent, w r hose heart is unchanged. I need 
not stay to prove, that God does not give "sufficient 
grace to all men," in this sense. The outward 
calls of the gospel are gracious, but no one except 
those who deny the operations of the Spirit altogeth- 
er, w r ill contend that this is "sufficient." The move- 
ments of the Spirit, w r hich many experience in con- 
viction, are gracious, but all admit that these are not 
"sufficient." What could we think of a teacher of 
religion, who would tell a sinner under conviction, 
that he had grace enough, and need not look for 
more ! And, the fact of telling him to pray for more f 
and of praying for such an one that he might have 
more given him, is sufficient proof that it is not 
deemed ^sufficient." If this be what is meant by 



104 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 

"sufficient grace," it is calling that sufficient which 
is not sufficient ; and, if they mean any other kind 
of grace, I know not. what kind it is. 

Con. — It seems to me contrary to all christian ex- 
perience, to maintain that any kind or degree of 
grace, is sufficient to lead a sinner to Christ, short 
of that which changes his heart, and gives him new 
views and feelings. 

Min. — But, you have not yet seen the worst fea- 
ture of this doctrine of "sufficient grace to all men." 
It is based upon the assumption, that without be- 
stowing this grace, God could not be sincere in of- 
fering salvation, or just in condemning unbelievers. 
Then he was bound to save all the human family 
without an atonement. For, if it would be unjust 
in him to condemn them, it would be just to save 
them, and whatever is strict justice, he is bound by 
every perfection of his nature to do. Then, with- 
out the atonement, and this "sufficient grace," all 
men would be saved. But God has provided a Sa- 
vior, and gives this "sufficient grace," to make it 
consistent with his justice to condemn some, who 
do not believe. This not only makes God the au- 
thor of sin, but it makes him the author of the eter- 
nal death of every impenitent sinner. I do not sup- 
pose, that the abettors of the doctrine intend to 
teach a sentiment so grossly blasphemous, but the 
conclusion is legitimate and necessary. If what 
they teach be true, this must be true likewise. 

The same doctrine is taught in different language 
on page 154 ; of the "doctrinal tracts." "The mo- 
ment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left ; but 
God, when of his own free grace he gave the prom- 
ise of a Savior, to him and his posterity, graciously 
restored to mankind a liberty and power to accept 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 105 

*>f proffered salvation." Now, if there were no free- 
dom of will, there could be no accountability. It is 
a plain dictate of common sense, that a man is not 
accountable for any thing he does not do willingly 
and freely. Then, where there is no freedom of 
will, there can be no sin. But, God gave them a 
freedom of will to capacitate them to sin. Hence, 
all mankind are sinners by the grace of God. But, 
I need not follow farther the absurdities of such doc- 
trines. They are all only miserable shifts to get 
clear of the doctrines of grace, and to fix up some 
scheme that will lead the helpless sinner aAvay from 
his entire dependence on the free, unmerited, sover- 
eign grace of God. 

Con. — But, is this clearly reconcilable with the 
commands and exhortations of the Bible to come to 
Christ, which I have heard Presbyterian ministers 
urge as strenuously upon sinners, as any other class 
of preachers ? 

Min. — It is the duty of the sinner to strive ; and, 
to those who do so, God has given gracious promises. 
But, they should always be taught to strive with a 
feeling of dependence, and earnest looking to God 
for grace. This is the course marked out in the 
word of God. "Work out your own salvation with 
fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you 
both to will and to do of his good pleasure." You 
perceive, that the Apostle, instead of making the 
dependence of the sinner an excuse for doing noth- 
ing, makes it the ground of his encouragement to 
work. There is no language in our Confession of 
Faith more forcible or comprehensive than this. 
God works in us "both to will and to do;" and, 
thereupon, the Apostle bases his exhortation to 
twork out our salvation." And, "what God hath 
8 



106 EFFECTUAL CALLING, 

joined together, let no man put asunder." Let 
these things always be kept in mind, and followed 
out, and there is no danger of mistake in going too 
far on either hand. No one can err in striving too 
earnestly for salvation, if it be done in the right 
way. No more can any one err, at the same time, 
in casting himself upon God, with too much depend- 
ence and earnest prayer for grace. Hence, boast- 
ing is excluded by the law of faith ; and, every true 
christian is prepared to say, "By the grace of God 

1 am w r hat I am." This, however, could not be the 
case, if any part of the work of regeneration were 
his own. "Who maketh thee to differ ?" is the em- 
phatic inquiry of the Apostle on this subject ; and, 
let any one who thinks he has had any part in his 
own regeneration, answer the question if he can, 
in accordance with the language of the Bible. 

You can now see the truth of the language of 
our catechism, when it says, "We are made partak- 
ers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the 
effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit." 
And farther, "The Spirit applieth to us the redemp- 
tion purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, 
and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual 
calling." And, again, "Effectual calling is the 
work of God's Spirit, w-hereby convincing us of 
our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the 
knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he 
doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, 
freely offered to us in the Gospel." Shorter Cate- 
chism — answer to questions 29, 30, 31. This lan- 
guage any one may compare with Scripture. Rom, 
8: 30 — "Whom he did predestinate, them he also 
called, and whom he called, them he also justified." 

2 Thes.2: 13— "God hath from the beginning chu-- 



EFFECTUAL CALLING. 107 

sen you to salvation, through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Cor. 3: 3— "The 
epistle of Christ ministered by us, written, not with 
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in ta- 
bles of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." 2 
Tim. 1: 9 — "Who hath saved us, and called us with 
an holy calling, not according to our works, but 
according to his own purpose and grace." Ezek. 
36 : 26 — "A new heart also will I give you, and a 
new spirit will I put within you," &c. Ezek. 11 : 
19 — "I will give them one heart, and I will put a 
new spirit within you." Ps. 110: 3 — "Thy people 
shall be willing in the day of thy power." Eph. 
2 : 1 — "You hath he quickened who were dead in 
trespasses and sins." Verse 5 — "Even when we 
were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with 
Christ, (by grace ye are saved.)" Verse 8 — "By 
grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of your- 
selves, it is the gift of God." But, I need not enu- 
merate farther, though it would be easy to find hun- 
dreds of texts which teach the same truth. The 
Bible, you perceive, teaches abundantly the doctrine 
of "sufficient grace," but it is in a sense very differ- 
ent from that taught in the "doctrinal tracts." The 
sufficient grace of the Bible, is that which finds man 
"dead in trespasses and sins, calls him with a holy 
calling, gives him a new heart, makes him willing, 
quickens him unto life, and leads him to Christ" — 
or, as our Catechism expresses it, "persuades and 
enables him to embrace Jesus Christ." It is in this 
sense that "faith is the gift of God ;" and, indeed, 
this is the only conceivable sense in which it can be. 
Con. — But, does not the doctrine of "sufficient 
£race to all men," meet, in the most satisfactory 
manner, the objection, that God is partial in giving 
more grace to some than to others ? 



10S EFFECTUAL CALLING* 

Mln. — Even if it did, we are not bound to adopt 
it, when it is so plainly contradicted by the Bible, 
I believe, however, that this is the ground upon 
which it is based. Men are unwilling to allow God 
his sovereignty, either in Providence or mercy. And, 
when the Bible tells us he distinguishes in his deal- 
ings with man, they reject the doctrine, and call it 
partiality in God to give any thing more to one than 
to another; and, leaving the plain doctrine of revela- 
tion, endeavor to patch up a scheme of their own, 
which they boast of as vindicating the character of 
God, when, in fact, it robs him of his sovereignty. 
But, still their scheme, instead of relieving, increases 
the difficulty. 

Con. — How does it increase the difficulty? It 
God gives to all men .the same amount of grace, 
there surely can be no charge of partiality. 

Mini — There would still be the same ground for 
the charge, unless he would go farther, and place all 
men precisely in the same circumstances, and give 
them precisely the same dispositions, that, accord- 
ing to this scheme, all might have precisely the 
same opportunities of improving their equal amount 
of grace. Similar causes operating in similar cir- 
cumstances, must invariably produce similar effects. 
The amount of grace that is "sufficient" to lead one 
man to the Savior, will invariably lead another of 
the same disposition, placed in similar circumstances. 
And, if all men possessed the same dispositions, and 
were in the same circumstances, what is sufficient 
for one would be for another, and all would be 
saved. But, all are not in the same circumstances, 
and have not the same opportunities. Some are 
born of christian parents, whose instructions and 
prayers are blessed to their conversion. Others are 



EFFECTUAL CALLING, 10 ( J 

taught from their infancy to disobey God and con- 
temn religion. Some never hear of a Savior, or of 
the true God. Now, over these circumstances, they 
themselves have no control ; and, those who accuse 
God of partiality because he discriminates in grace, 
and contend that it would be injustice to bestow 
more upon one man than anothei% are bound to ex- 
plain, upon the same principles, the facts of his prov- 
idence, by which he orders the lots of men in the 
world; But, here they will find an insuperable diffi- 
culty, because they cannot deny the fact, that some 
are placed in circumstances better calculated to re- 
sult in their salvation, than others. 

How much more consistent with common sense, 
and with the disposition we ought to exercise toward 
God and his word, to take the simple language of 
the Bible, that "he has mercy on whom he will have 
mercy," and will have trophies of his grace out of 
all nations and classes of men. And, whenever any- 
one turns aside from the truth of the Bible, to recon- 
cile what, in the pride of opinion, he conceives to 
be difficulties, he will only find himself surrounded 
with difficulties still more perplexing and insuperable. 

Con. — It seems to me a fact that cannot be dis- 
puted, that God distinguishes both in his providence 
and grace, and the objection of partiality, I per- 
ceive, amounts to a denial of his sovereign right to 
do as he pleases, which the Bible every where as- 
cribes to him, and which it must be impious to con- 
trovert, either directly or indirectly. 

But, there is another point upon which I wish to 
have your views, about which I have felt some diffi- 
culty ; I mean the doctrine of perfect sanctification 
in this life. I feel that I am very far from what I 
should be, and my desire is to get clear of all sin. 



110 SINLESS PERFECTION. 

We are commanded in the Bible to "be perfect :" 
and yet, I know your Church holds that absolute 
perfection is not attainable in this life. I feel that 
it is a question of great practical importance, and 
would like to have all the information I can derive 
from every source. 

Min. — Call at any time you find convenient, and 
I will endeavor to give you a plain, scriptural view 
of it, both as it respects our duty and privilege. 



DIALOGUE XIII. 

SINLESS PERFECTION. 

Minister. — The doctrine we proposed to examine 
this evening, viz: Whether any one in this life ever 
attains to absolute sinless perfection, is thus plainly 
expressed in our Confession of Faith: "No mere 
man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to 
keep the commandments of God, but doth daily 
break them, in thought, word, and deed." — Shorter 
Catechism, ans. to qu. 82- I need not stay to prove. 
that "the commandments of God" are our standard 
of holiness, and any thing that comes short of a per- 
fect fulfillment of all their requirements, in all res- 
pects, is not perfect obedience. And we not only 
sin in every positive violation of the law, but also in 
every w<ant of perfect conformity to all its holy re- 
quirements. Gal. 3: 10 — "Cursed is every one that 
continueth not in all things which are written in the 
book of the law to do them." It is a plain dictate 



SINLESS PERFECTION. Hi 

of common sense, as well as of the Bible, that in 
failing to do, or to be, what God requires, is sinful, 
as well as doing, or being, what he forbids. Hence, 
our catechism says — "Sin is any want of conformity 
unto, or transgression of, the law of God." — Shorter 
Cat. ans. to qu. 14. 

Convert. — Are we then to account all our infirmi- 
ties sinful; and all our consequent mistakes and ab- 
errations, whether voluntary or involuntary ? 

Min. — Every thing that is not in strict accord- 
ance with God's requirements must be sin. He re- 
quires nothing but holiness, and whatever he re- 
quires, it is our duty to give. I know it is said by 
the advocates of the doctrine of perfection, that our 
infirmities^ and mistakes are not sinful ; and yet, 
they contradict themselves by saying, that "every 
such mistake, were it not for the blood of atone- 
ment, would expose us to eternal damnation." — 
"Doctrinal Tracts," p. 311. That is, God would be 
just in sending us to hell forever, for that which is 
not sin. A sentiment more derogatory to God can 
scarcely be imagined. It is only another attempt to 
degrade the law of God — to take from it its strict- 
ness and spirituality, and bring it down to the low 
and common views entertained of it by men of the 
world. It is too generally lost sight of in the world, 
that the law of God, in its holy requirements, ex- 
tends to the feelings of the heart, the thoughts, and 
exercises of the inner man; and errorists almost 
uniformly, fall in with the feelings of the world, and 
make the law of God a matter of such small mo- 
ment, that perfect obedience is comparatively easy. 
But the Bible speaks in different language. What 
it mainly insists upon, is right feelings and disposi- 
tions; and it chiefly condemns feelings and dispo- 



118 SINLESS PERFECTION 

sitions that are wrong, because, from these proceed 
all the outward conduct. "Out of the heart," says 
Christ, "proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders," 
&c. And, Solomon says, "Keep thy heart with all 
diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." Love 
is a feeling, repentance is a feeling, faith is an inward 
exercise of the soul, humility is a feeling, hope, pa- 
tience, resignation, charity, meekness, kindness, con- 
tentment, <&<£., are all feelings. Yet, who, that 
reads the Bible carefully, does not perceive, that all 
these are required as indispensable duties ? And, on 
the other hand, enmity to God is a feeling, unbelief 
is a feeling, selfishness, pride, impenitence, love of 
the world, covetausness, envy, anger, hatred, re- 
venge, &c., are all feelings, and all are forbidden as 
the worst of sins. Hence, it is evident, that to form 
any thing like a proper estimate of our character in 
the sight of God and his law, we must first, and 
chiefly have respect to the feelings and dispositions 
of the heart. And, before we can be perfect, we 
must in all these respects, be absolutely and entirely 
free from the least failure, and exercise all those 
feelings as purely as the angels in heaven. 

Con, — In that case, I do not believe that any one, 
who has a proper view of himself, will ever clain. 
be perfect. 

Min. — it is, I believe-, generally claimed on the 
ground of perfect love, They claim to have per- 
fect love ; and, as the Apostle says, "love is the ful- 
filling of the law," therefore,, they are perfect. But, 
any one who thinks he has as much love as he ought 
to have, has very grovelling ideas of his obligations 
:o God, or very superficial views of himself. But 
there are other classes of sins, which are rather con- 
sequent upon those of the heart and feelings. 



SINLESS PERFECTION. 113 

■\vhich we must take account in forming a propel 
estimate of our character in the sight of God and 
his law. The Bible says, that vain, trilling, and 
foolish thoughts are sinful. Christ classes "evil. 
thoughts" with "thefts, murder, adultery," &c. 
"The wicked" is not only commanded to "forsake 
his ways," but also "the unrighteous man his 
thoughts" Again, we are told, that "the thoughts 
of the wicked are an abomination unto the Lord," 
&c. And God says, in another place — "Hear, O 
earth, I will bring evil upon this people, even the 
fruit of their thoughts" Indeed, the character of 
the man seems to be in some measure determined 
by his thoughts. "For as a man thinketh in his 
heart, so is he." These passages, with many bthers 
that might be quoted, prove very clearly, that much 
sin is committed in thought. And if vain and fool- 
ish thoughts are sinful, we may not only ask, who 
is perfect ? — but, who can enumerate the sins of a 
single day? We should remember, too, that 
thoughts are the language of spirits, and each one 
has a tongue in the ear of God. Christ answered 
the thoughts of those around him, as if they had 
spoken. It is no wonder that God says, "every im- 
agination of the thoughts of man's heart, is evil 
continually." But this is not all, still. We must 
also take into the account, the sins of our tongues. 
And here I need not speak of falsehood, slander, 
profanity, &c. These, all know and admit to be 
sins. But Christ says, that "every idle word, which 
men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in 
the day of judgment." Mere idle words, then, are 
sins, and 

Con. — But, what are idle words? 

3£ift. — All that are not necessary, and that do not 



il4 SINLESS PERFECTION. 

tend to produce some good result. The commands 
of the Bible are. "Let no corrupt communication- 
proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good ? 
to the use of edifying :" "let your speech be always 
with grace, that it may minister grace to the hear- 
ers ;" "nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not 
convenient, but rather giving of thanks." These 
rules may be thought too strict, by the advocates of 
perfection, but they are the rules which God lays 
down in his word, by which we are to order our 
conversation. Every word which does not comport 
with these rules, is an "idle word/' and sinful in the 
sight of God. Then, where is the man who will 
stand up before God and say, that, in this respect 
alone, he is free from sin ? 

But, still more : When we take into the account 
our actions in general, the mountain rises still high- 
er. Here I need not go further than to speak of 
our sins of omission. The command is, "Withhold 
not good from him to whom it is due, when it is in 
the power of thine hand to do it, for to him that 
knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is 
sin." From this it is plain, that whenever we have 
an opportunity of doing good, either to the souls or 
bodies of others, and neglect to improve it, we sin 
both against our fellow-men and against God. But, 
farther: God tells us, "Whether ye eat or drink, or 
whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." This 
applies to all our words and actions, and proves, be- 
yond controversy, that every word we speak, and 
every action we perform, which is not done with a 
view to promote the glory of God, is sinful. Of 
how many sins, then, are we guilty ? And, where 
is the perfect man, in this respect? Again : we are 
commanded to "pray without ceasing," to "rejoice 



SINLESS PERFECTION, 115 

in the Lord always," &c. Every moment that we 
have not a holy, prayerful, frame of mind, we sin. 
It is admitted on all hands, that it is a sin to swear 
profanely ; but few reflect that it is also a sin not to 
pray, whenever it is our duty or privilege. But, I 
need not enlarge, though much more might be said 
in contrasting the obedience of the best men, with 
the high and holy requirements of the law of God. 
Enough has been said, however, to show you the 
truth of the language of our Confession, that "we 
daily break the commandments of God in thought, 
word, and deed." 

Con. — As it respects the simple fact, that all men 
are sinners, and that, in this life, no one ever attains 
to such a degree of perfection in holiness as to be 
entirely free from sin, I think cannot be controvert- 
ed, if we allow the law of God, in all its holy require- 
ments, to be our standard. Indeed, I have never 
had much difficulty in my mind as to the fact, that 
all come far short of perfect holiness in this respect. 
But, how are we to understand the commands of 
God requiring this perfection, if it be not attainable ? 

Min. — The fact that it is unattained, and unat- 
tainable, does not arise from God, but from ourselves, 
and therefore it is no less our duty, and it should be 
the constant aim of every christian. Indeed, no 
true christian can rest satisfied with himself, while 
he feels any remaining corruption, and consequently 
the warfare is still continued ; and, as the Bible ex- 
presses it, he goes on "from strength to strength." 
His standard of holiness is God himself, of whose 
character the law is a transcript. With the com- 
mand before him, "Be ye holy, for I the Lord your 
God am holy," he finds no place to stop short of 
this, until, like the angels in heaven, he reflects fully 
and perfectly the image of his Maker. 



116 SINLESS PERFECTION* 

Con. — But, are there not some passages of Scrip* 
tare, which favor the idea that some are perfect, or 
that it has been attained in this life by some individ^ 
uals ? 

Min.—We are told to "mark the perfect man, 
and behold the upright, for the end of that man is 
peace." Paul says, "Let us therefore, as many as 
be perfect, be thus minded," &c. "Be perfect, be 
of good comfort," &c. Noah* we are told, "was a 
just man and perfect," &c. But, it is plain, from 
the connection in which the word is used in other 
places, that it does not mean an entire freedom from 
all sin. The primary signification of the original 
word, which Paul uses in his exhortation to the Co- 
rinthians, "be perfect," is . collecting together the 
disjointed or broken parts of a body or system, so 
as to make it uniform or complete, and that no 
part be wanting, and there is such a thing attaina- 
ble, and often attained, as perfection, in this sense : 
that is, a perfect Gospel character For instance, if 
a professor of religion be in the habit of prevarica- 
tion, or if he be covetous or niggardly in his deal- 
ings, or in any way exhibits to the world traits of 
character inconsistent with his profession, they are 
blots in his christian character which cast a shade 
over the whole, and excite doubts as to the reality of 
his piety. In this respect, every christian should 
and can be perfect : that is, he should exhibit the 
christian character complete in all its parts. But, 
to love God as much as we should, to exercise con- 
stant faith, in all the strength and unwavering con- 
fidence that he requires, to have hope, repentance, 
humility, and all the christian graces and virtues in 
constant, perfect operation, and to be entirely free 
from sin in the sight of God, is a very different mat- 



SINLESS PERFECTION. 117 

ier. The Savior evidently uses the term "perfect" 
in the former sense, when speaking to the young ru- 
ler — "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou 
hast," &c. Surely he did not mean, that thereby 
he would be free from all sin. Perfection, then, in 
the Bible sense, means integrity, sincerity in our 
profession, unfeigned love to God, and respect to all 
lis commands. But, as our time will not permit us 
to enter fully into the Bible arguments on this sub- 
ject, we will defer it to our next interview. 



DIALOGUE XIV, 

SINLESS PERFECTION. 

Convert. — Your views of the sinfulness of all men 
in the sight of God, presented at our last interview, 
cannot, I think, be objected to, except on the ground 
that it is discouraging to the christian to know that 
[lis desires cannot be accomplished, until he ends his 
earthly career. It must be the most earnest desire 
of every true christian to be free from all sin ; and, 
will it not have a tendency to paralyze his efforts to 
grow in grace, to know that his whole life is to be 
spent in endeavors to attain to that state of perfec- 
tion which none ever find ? 

Minister. — I believe it has just the opposite ten- 
dency, judging both from the Bible and all christian 
experience. Would it be discouraging to a man on 
a journey, to know that the object he had in view 
^as to be obtained onlv at the end of it? It would 



US SINLESS PERFECTION. 

tend to encourage him all the way, to know certain- 
ly that he would finish his journey, and there, and 
there only, he would obtain the object he had in 
view. The way might be long and the journey 
difficult, but the certain prospect of gaining the de- 
sired object, would still cheer him in his toil. So 
Paul expresses his experience, Phil. 3 : 13, 14 — 
"Forgetting those things which are behind, and 
reaching forth unto those things which are before, 
I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high 
calling of God in Christ Jesus." This is very far 
from the language of a Perfectionist. He counted 
all his former good works and attainments in sanc- 
tification only worthy of being forgotten, in com- 
parison with those that were yet before him. But, 
how eagerly he presses forward, knowing that the 
prize was yet before him, encouraged with the hope 
which animates every christian, that perfect meet- 
ness for heaven, and release from the world will be 
found in immediate connection. 

It is, moreover, the desire of every christian to 
grow in grace, and while he finds himself advancing 
in holiness and growing in conformity to the image 
of God, he finds in this his greatest encouragement 
to press on still toward the high and glorious prize 
that is before him, perfect holiness and perfect hap- 
piness in heaven. Perfect happiness must always 
be an immediate consequence of perfect holiness ; 
and, how could Paul say he was pressing on to ob- 
tain the prize, if he had already obtained it? In 
this way, the doctrine of perfection is destructive of 
growth in grace. A low standard is set up as the 
mark of christian attainment; and, when any one 
entertains so good an opinion of himself as to think 
he has arrived at it, all further advancement is at an 



SINLESS PERFECTION. 119 

end. Such an one must conclude that he has attain- 
ed to that which the Apostle, in his burning zeal> 
felt himself wanting. And, I can only say, that I 
think a person who sets up this claim, has yet room 
to make considerable advancement in the grace of 
humility. 

Con. — It has always struck me unfavorably, to 
hear any one claiming to be perfect ; but, knowing 
that the grace of God is all powerful, and that free- 
dom from all sin must be the desire of every chris- 
tian, I found difficulty in deciding that no one ob- 
tained the blessing. But, in looking at the high 
standard of holiness which the Bible has set up, I 
think every one, who has a proper view of himself, 
will decide with the Apostle, that it is a "prize of 
the high calling of God in Christ Jesus>" which is 
yet far before him. 

Min. — Let us now look more particularly, at 
some arguments from the Bible. James speaks the 
language of christian experience, when he says> 
James 3: 2— "In many things we offend all." Af- 
ter thus stating the general truth, that "all" are sin- 
ners "in many things," he goes on to speak of par- 
ticular offences, which cast a stain upon the chris- 
tian character, and I think plainly teaches the doc- 
trine of christian perfection, in the sense in which I 
spoke of it at our last interview, that is, a perfectly 
consistent Gospel character, exhibiting to the world 
the piety and integrity of the inner man, and the 
sincerity of his profession. "If any man offend not 
in word, the same is a perfect man, and able to bridle 
the whole body" &c. He teaches the same doc- 
trine in chapter 1, verse 27 — "Pure religion and un- 
defiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the 
fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to 



1*20 SINLESS PERFECTION, 

keep himself unspotted from the world" Paul says, 
Phil. 3 : 12 — "Not as though I had already attained, 
either were already perfect." In whatever sense 
he uses the word here, it is plain that he did not 
consider himself perfect. 

Con. — But, are we to suppose that Paul did not 
maintain a perfect Gospel character? 

Min. — So far as we know, he did ; but, if he here 
uses the word in that sense, it only shows, what is 
always the fact, that the true christian, who is stri- 
ving after holiness, and endeavoring to "let his light 
shine," feeling his own failures, always puts a worse 
estimate on his own character, than others who can- 
not see him as he sees himself. A man who advan- 
ces in any degree near perfection in this sense, in 
the eyes of others, will always be found the last 
man to claim it for himself. In what a striking con- 
trast, then, the language of the Apostle appears, to 
that of our modern boasting Perfectionists ! But, 
farther, Solomon in his prayer at the dedication of 
the temple, recorded in 1 Kings, 8 : 46, beseeches 
God to be merciful to the sins of his people, and ex- 
pressly says, "For there is no man that sinneth not." 
Again, Job 9 : 30, 31 — "If I wash myself with snow- 
water, and make my hands never so clean; yet shalt 
thou plunge me into the ditch, and mine own clothes 
shall abhor me. For he is not a man, as I am, that 
I should answer him, and we should come together 
in judgment." Here it is plainly taught, that how- 
ever pure we may be in the eyes of the world, yet 
with God we are vile and polluted. The same is 
taught in stronger language still, in chapter 15 : 14 
— " What is man that he should be clean ? And, he 
that is born of a woman, that he should be right- 
eous?" But, he speaks more explicitly still, in 9 : 20 



SINLESS PERFECTION. 121 

*If I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me per- 
verse. " What a commentary on the language of a 
Perfectionist! Again, Eccl. 7: 20— "For there is 
not a just man upon earth, that doethgood, and sin- 
net h not." Isa. 64: 6 — "We are all as an unclean 
thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." 
These passages in themselves are sufficient to prove, 
that the Bible does not consider any one perfect in 
the sense in which Perfectionists claim it. But, 
farther still. Christ teaches us to pray, "Forgive 
us our trespasses," &c. This direction is given for 
secret prayer., and, therefore, these "trespasses," for 
the pardon of which we are to pray, are our own 
individual sins. And, it is also plain., that it was in- 
tended for our daily use. The fourth petition in 
this summary of prayer given for our direction, is, 
"Give us this day our daily bread," or "give us day 
by day our daily bread," and the next petition in 
immediate connection is 9 "forgive us our trespass- 
es/' &c. 

It will n&t, I presume, be denied, that this direc- 
tion was also intended for christians. But, if any 
one be perfect, he cannot pray according to the di- 
rection of Christ, for he has no sins to be forgiven. 
Indeed, the prayers of a man who esteems himself 
perfect, must be short and few, if he may be said to 
pray at all. He needs no grace to overcome any 
sinful propensity, "The body of sin and death," 
which troubled the apostle so much, is with him 
perfectly sanctified and holy. He, then, needs nei- 
ther mercy nor grace, But these are by the Apostle 
made the main errand of a believer at a throne of 
grace. Heb. 4 : 16 — "Let us therefore come bold- 
ly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mev- 
*U and find grace to help* in time of need." But a 
a/ 



122 SINLESS PERFECTION 

Perfectionist has no time of need," he needs no 
more "grace" or "mercy," he has all the grace he 
needs, and no sins to be forgiven, and consequently 
has no errand to a "throne of grace." 

As to the christian experience recorded in the 
Bible, it is any thing but perfectionism. The most 
extensive records- are those of David and Paul. And ? 
if perfection were to be found any where, we might 
surely expect to find it in the experience of these 
eminent servants of God. But, what is the fact ? 
We find them lamenting their sins and short-com- 
ings, recording their earnest longings after more en- 
tire conformity to the law of God, and praying for 
more grace to enable them, to advance in divine life, 
We find no intimation any where that they thought 
themselves perfect,, but every where the reverse. 
Time will not permit us to examine the numerous 
passages in which they record their sinfulness as 
their constant experience. But we will look at 
ijome of them. Ps. 25: 11 — "For thy name's 
sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity ; for it is great." 
31: 10 — "My strength faileth because of mine ini- 
quity, and my bones are consumed." 38 : 3, 4, 5 — - 
" Neither is there any rest in my bones, because of 
my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over my head ;. 
as an heavy burden, they are too heavy for me. My 
wounds stink* and are corrupt, because of my fool- 
ishness." 40: 12 — "For innumerable evils have 
compassed me about; mine iniquities have taken 
hold upon me, so that I am not able to* look up ; 
they are more than the hairs of mine head, therefore 
my heart faileth me." This does not look much 
like perfection ; and much more of the same kind 
might be given. The 119th Psalm is almost one 
continued confession of failure in duty, and prayer 



SINLESS PERFECTION. l23 

for quickening grace. Verse 5th — "O that my 
ways were directed to keep thy statutes." 25 — 
"My soul cleaveth unto the dust : quicken thou me 
according to thy word." 29 — "Remove from me 
the way of lying, and grant me thy law graciously." 
32 — "I will run the way of thy commandments, when 
thou shalt enlarge my heart." 81 — "My soul fainteth 
for thy salvation ; but I hope in thy word." 96 — "1 
have seen an end of all perfection ; but thy com- 
mandment is exceeding broad" 123 — "Mine eyes 
fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy right- 
eousness." 131 — "I opened my mouth and panted : 
for I longed for thy commandments." 176 — "I 
have gone astray like a lost sheep : seek thy ser- 
vant ; for I do not forget thy commandments." All 
these express the exercises of the pious soul, that 
feels its short-comings, and longs after greater con- 
formity to the law of God, but they would sound 
very strange in the mouth of a Perfectionist. 

Paul gives his experience in language equally 
plain, and, if possible, more strong and explicit 
Rom. 7: 14 — 25 — "For we know that the law is 
spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that 
which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do 
I not ; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do 
that which I would not, I consent unto the law, that 
it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it> 
but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me v 
(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to 
will is present with me; but how to perform that 
which is good I find not. For the good that I would, 
I do not : but the evil which I would not, that I do, 
Now if I do that I w r ould not, it is no more I that do 
it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, 
that w r hen I would do good, evil is present with me, 



124 SINLESS PERFECTION. 

For I delight in the law of God after the inward 
man. But I see another law in my members, war- 
ring against the law of my mind, and bringing me 
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- 
bers. wretched man that I am ! who shall deliv- 
er me from the body of this death? I thank God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the 
mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the 
tlesh the law of sin." This, in itself, if there were 
not another passage in the Bible, is sufficient to 
prove that the Apostle was a stranger to any thing 
like sinless perfection. 

Con. — But, does not this, taking it all together, 
prove too much, and, therefore, prove nothing \ 
Does not the Apostle use language which cannot be 
true of the christian? — "I am carnal, sold under 
sin." Can this be true of any one who is a true be- 
liever ? He says in another place of christians, "ye 
are not under the law, but under grace." How r 
then, can they be "sold under sin ?" 

Min. — It is a very strong expression, I admit : and 
those who advocate the doctrine of perfection, have 
laid hold of it to prove that the Apostle is not giv- 
ing his own experience, but the feelings of a sinner. 
But, the falsity of such a view, is clearly shown in 
the 22d verse — "I delight in the law of God after 
the inward man." And he gives the language of a 
true believer in the 25th verse— "I thank God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord." It is as impossible 
to apply this to an unconverted sinner, as the whole 
passage to a perfectionist. But, the expression, 
"carnal, sold under sin," is of very easy solution, if 
we allow r the Apostle to explain himself, which he 
does in the verse immediately following — "For that 
which I do, I allow not," &c. The word "/or," con- 



SINLESS PERFECTION. 125 

is the two verses, and shows that the one is ex- 
planatory of the other. The simple meaning, there- 
fore, is, that he was an unwilling "servant" of his 
inward propensities, against which he was strug- 
gling, and from which he desired to be free, but 
which he still felt maintaining their power over him, 
and still "bringing him into captivity." It express- 
es, in very strong terms, the inward conflict which 
every christian experiences and understands. The 
passage taken together, contains an unanswerable 
proof that perfection in holiness is not attainable in 
this life, or at least that the Apostle had not attained 
it w r hen he wrote this account of his experience. 
And to my mind it is clear, that a perfectionist, in- 
stead of having completed the christian warfare, has 
it yet to begin. 

Con. — But, have we no account of any one in the 
Bible, who claimed to have attained perfection in 
holiness? 

Mifiu — Not unless the Pharisee may be so called, 
who, Christ tells us, "went up to the temple to pray." 
He claimed to be perfect, even before God. He had 
no sins to be pardoned, and no grace to ask, in his 
own estimation; but thanked God that he was so 
good. "Lord I thank thee that I am not as other 
men," &c. Whether he knew in his heart that he 
was a sinner or not, we are not told, but we know 
he claimed to be perfect, and wished to be so es- 
teemed. He had no errand to a throne of grace 
but to enumerate his virtues, and thank God that 
he had no sin. But, it is only another proof of the 
truth of the saying of John, 1 John, 1 : 8- — "If we 
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and 
die truth is not in us." 

Con, — But, if so much of our nature still remains 



126 



PERSEVERANCE. 



unsanctified, does it not afford a ground of fear, that 
it will entirely overcome all our holy purposes and 
resolutions, and prove the cause of our final aposta- 
cy from God and holiness ? 

Min. — Every christian no doubt feels, that if the 
warfare were to be carried on in his own strength, 
there would be little doubt as to the result. But, 
the fact that they feel their own weakness, teaches 
them where their strength lies, and it is thus made in- 
strumental in their perseverance in holiness, through 
divine grace. 

But, as this involves the general doctrine of per- 
severance, we will consider it at our next interview, 



DIALOGUE XV, 



PERSEVERANCE. 



Convert. — The sentiment you advanced at our 
last interview, that the remaining corruptions pi 
our nature are instrumental in our perseverance in 
holiness, seems to me a paradox, which I cannot 
fully understand, or reconcile with the doctrines ot 
grace. Does it not make sin one of the means of 
grace 1 

Minister. — A person who feels that he is sick, and 
uses means for his recovery, does not make his sick- 
ness instrumental in his restoration. It is his know- 
edge of his disease, that leads him to the use of 
proper means. So, if a christian's sense of his re- 
maining imperfection, lead him to the fountain ot 



PERSEVERANCE. 127 

grace, in the use of proper means, it does not make 
his sin a mean of grace. I mentioned it, however, 
as a fact in christian experience, to show that our 
imperfection, in this life, was no argument against 
our final perseverance, but rather in favor of it. 
^Such was Paul's experience, when he says, 2 Cor., 
12 : 9, 10— "Most gladly, therefore, will I rather 
glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may 
rest upon me. # # * For, when I am weak, then 
am I strong." It was not his weakness, in itself, 
that was his strength ; but, feeling his weakness, he 
was led to look for grace, that he might enjoy its 
almighty power. Such, I need hardly tell you, is 
the experience of every christian, unless we may 
except the Perfectionist, whose experience in this, 
as in every thing else, differs from that of Paul. 
When you look at yourself, and realize your short- 
comings and failures, and how far your heart is, in 
many respects, from what it should be, does it not 
lead you, not only to pray for, but to admire and 
love that grace, which can, and does elevate, refine, 
and quicken, a heart so cold and insensible ? 

Con. — I can truly say, that such is my experi- 
ence ; and I have often admired the language of one 
of our hymns : 

"Almighty grace ! thy healing power, 

How glorious — -how divine ! 
That can to life and bliss restore 

So cold a heart as mine." 

Min. — This is simply what the Apostle means by 
^glorying in infirmity." And it is easy to see how 
such experience has a tendency to keep the chris- 
tian constantly at a throne of grace, where he finds 
his only hope of perseverance in holiness. This is 



126 PERSEVERATION 

the ground upon which the doctrine of perseverance 
is based. It is not of man, but of God. I need not 
stay to prove, that we are entirely dependent 01. 
God for persevering grace. The work of sanctifi- 
eation is his, and his entirely. 

Co)i. — But, is not the christian actively engaged 
in his own sanctification ? 

Mill* — He "works out his own salvation" — but 
still "it is God that workethin him, both to will and 
to do" — Phil. 2: 12, 13. The christian grows in 
grace, but it is God that enables him. His mind 
concurs in the work; so that he is not only actively,, 
but zealously engaged in it ; but it is in striving te 
obtain that grace, upon which he feels he is entire- 
ly dependent. All his exertions and prayers are to 
this end. But this, instead of proving that his final 
perseverance depends upon himself, proves the con- 
trary. If, then, the perseverance of christians in a 
life of faith and holiness, depends upon God, and any 
finally and totally apostatize, it must be because God 
is either unable or unwilling to carry them forward 
in their christian course to complete salvation- 
That he is unable, I presume none will contend — 
that he is unwilling, will not, I think, be contended 
by any one who has any thing like a proper esti- 
mate of his character, as revealed in his word, ana 
exhibited in his providence and grace. He has re- 
generated, justified, and, in part, sanctified them: 
he has given them to his Son as trophies of his 
cross, pardoned all their sins, adopted them as sons 
and daughters into his family, and the Savior has 
prepared mansions for them in heaven. Then, to 
say that God is unwilling to preserve them, would.. 
it seems to me, be as absurd and blasphemous as to 
say that he is unable. 1 Thes. 4 : 3— "This is tlfe 



PERSEVERANCE. 129 

will of God, even your sanctification." If, then, the 
work be his, and he be both able and willing to per- 
form it, we may conclude it will be done. 

Con. — But, though God is willing and able to 
save them, may he not be provoked to withdraw his 
Spirit, and leave them to final apostacy, as a pun- 
ishment for their sins ? 

Min. — God might, it is true, if he saw fit, with- 
draw his gifts, and the abandoned sinner would have 
no just cause of complaint. But, the question is, 
will he do it, after all that he has done for him? 
His gifts were free, and entirely unmerited. There 
w r as no compulsion. Neither was there any w r ant 
of consideration. Men may bestow gifts inconsid- 
erately and rashly, and afterwards find occasion to 
withdraw them ; but God's gifts are bestowed with 
a full knowledge of all or any difficulties that might 
arise in the way of their continuance. He knew 
when he gave them, whether any thing would ever 
require him to withdraw them. If he gave them 
with a knowledge that he would withdraw them, 
(which all must admit, if they should ever be with- 
drawn,) then he acts a part more capricious than 
men ; for, no man would bestow a gift, when he 
knew that it would be so abused that he would be 
compelled to withdraw it. Yet, the advocates of 
the doctrine of "falling from grace," as it is termed, 
would have us believe, that God regenerates, justi- 
fies, pardons, and in part sanctifies, or as some say 
sanctifies perfectly, those whom he knows must 
bear his wrath in hell forever. Surely, the advo- 
cates of such a doctrine, do not consider what they 
teach. 

Con. — But, may we not suppose that his grace 
is bestowed conditionally : that is, if the christian 



130 PERSEVERANCE. 

improve the gift, it will be continued and increased; 
but if not, it will be withdrawn? 

Min. — That supposition will not relieve the diffi- 
culty. Let us suppose that the grace of justification, 
or pardon, is bestowed conditionally. But a condi- 
tional pardon is no pardon at all. If it be suspended 
on any thing to be done, it is not granted — it is only 
promised. But, if a man is not actually pardoned 
and justified, he is not a christian. It is not an 
unregenerated, unjustified sinner, that we say will 
be enabled by God to persevere, but the true chris- 
tian, who is really a child of God, who has actually 
been justified through faith, one whose heart has 
been changed by divine grace, who has exercised 
faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, who truly loves 
God, feels thankful for the mercy and grace he has 
received, rejoices to believe that he is pardoned and 
accepted of God; and yet he is not pardoned, if it 
only be promised conditionally, and he is not yet at 
liberty even to hope for heaven. How could we 
exhort such an one? We could not exhort him to 
continue in a state of justification; for he is not yet 
justified. We could not exhort him to continue a 
christian ; for he is not yet a christian — the wrath of 
God is still abiding on him, and he is still in a state 
of condemnation — the curse is not yet removed. 

But, there are other difficulties arising from such a 
supposition If pardon and justification be suspended 
upon the condition of perseverance in holiness, they 
cannot be bestowed on account of the merits of 
Christ ; and thus it is subversive of the main prin- 
ciple of the Gospel. How much more consistent 
with the plain dictates of common sense, to believe, 
as the Bible tells us, that when a sinner believes and 
repents, all his sins are actually pardoned, and that, 



PERSEVERANCE. 131 

on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, he is 
justified and accepted as righteous in the sight of 
God, and is fully reconciled, and adopted as a child 
of God, and an heir of heaven, and the mansions 
of glory, to which he will certainly be received. 

Con. — Are we, then, to suppose that the perse- 
verance of the christian is altogether unconditional ? 
That is, are we to suppose that he will certainly 
obtain complete salvation, whether he live a holy 
life or not ? 

Min. — That is supposing a contradiction. It is 
perseverance in holiness that is secured ; and it is 
secured in the same way with his regeneration ana 
justification. You recollect that when we were 
considering the doctrine of election, it was made 
plain from the fact, that God is the author of regen- 
eration and conversion from sin to holiness; because, 
when God converts a sinner, he does it from design, 
and, as he can have no new designs, it must have 
been eternal. Now, his design is not to save any 
one in sin, but "through sanctification of the Spirit 
and belief of the truth."— 2 Thes. 2: 13. His pur- 
pose to save embraces both regeneration and sanc- 
tification. When you look at God's mercy ana 
grace, in your conversion, and trace it back to its 
source, you find the doctrine of election ; and you 
have only to trace it forward to its completion, to 
find the doctrine of perseverance. You have saio 
that God, in your conversion, was fulfilling his gra- 
cious design which he must have had toward you. 
That design was, of course, to save you through the 
operations of his Spirit, transforming you anew, and 
making you meet for heaven. Thus, holiness is not 
a condition of perseverance, but a part of it; and 
to suppose that it is irrespective of holiness, is a 



132 PERSEVERANCE. 

contradiction. Here, too, we see an argument for 
the truth of the doctrine, which, to my mind, is con- 
clusive. If God's design, in your conversion, were 
not to save you finally, it could not be a gracious 
design. When he sent his Spirit to change your 
heart, and enable you to believe on his Son; raised 
your affections to himself, and fixed your hopes in 
heaven, if he only designed to lead you forward 
for a time, and then leave you to go to hell at last, 
his design was any thing but gracious. But, let us 
suppose such a case. A man, through the grace of 
God, is converted at thirty years of age. All his 
sins are pardoned. He is justified, and, in part, 
sanctified, admitted to communion and fellowship 
with God, rejoices to believe that he is forgiven and 
accepted of God through the merits of Christ, and 
is cheered with the prospect of complete salvation. 
He lives a christian life for one or two years, "falls 
from grace," loses entirely ail his interest in religion, 
dies a child of satan, and goes to hell. How will 
such an one give his account? The sins of his first 
thirty years have all been pardoned through Christ. 
But, if he be punished only for the sins of the last 
few months, he does not receive according to his 
deeds. His punishment is not in proportion to his 
guilt, which is contrary to the principles of justice, 
and the plain declarations of the Bible. But, the 
supposition that any one, who has been truly regen- 
erated and sanctified, washed in the blood of Christ, 
and adopted as a child of God, will at last be left of 
God and sent to hell, is so inconsistent with the 
character and dealings of God, that it only needs 
to be mentioned to see its absurdity. Yet, all this 
absurdity is involved in the doctrine of "falling 
i grace." 



PERSEVERANCE, 133 

Con. — -But, will it not have a tendency to make 
the christian feel secure, and relax his efforts to 
advance in holiness, to know that his salvation is 
certain and unalterably fixed in the purpose and 
good pleasure of God. 

Mi?i. — It is often urged by the enemies of the 
doctrine of perseverance, that it is dangerous. It 
is not uncommon to hear them say, that if the doc- 
trine be true, any one may live as he pleases. I 
once heard a preacher say: "If I believed such a 
doctrine, I would care nothing about growth in 
grace, or living a holy life.-' But, such objectors 
forget, that if they speak according to their feelings, 
they give strong evidence that they are strangers 
to the love of God, and cast a severe reflection upon 
true religion. Suppose a father, when about to 
settle a patrimony upon his son, is told that it will 
be dangerous to do so, lest, when the son should 
know that all w r as securely his, he would treat him 
unkindly. What severer reflection could he cast 
upon the son? And what mournful evidence it- 
would be of the son's entire selfishness, and want 
of love to his father, to hear him say, that if his 
father would once fix the patrimony securely in his 
hands, he would not care how he treated him! Just 
such is the evidence that the professed christian 
gives of his love to God, who says that if he once 
felt sure of heaven, he would not care how he lived. 
I admit that it would be dangerous to make heaven 
sure to such. Whether it would be dangerous or 
not, for a father thus to settle the patrimony upon 
his son, would depend altogether on the nature of 
the son's feelings toward him. If they were alto- 
gether selfish, it would be dangerous. But, if the 
son truly loved his father, it would increase his 



1 34 PERSEVERANCE. 

filial attachment to know that his father had done 
se much for him. The more he would give the son, 
die more the son would love him. So, if a ehris- 
:ian have true love to God, we need not fear to tell 
him how much God has done for him. The more 
he sees of the love of God, the more his own heart 
will be warmed with the heavenly flame, and he 
will desire the more to be conformed to his image. 
I think it will be admitted, that it is the expe- 
rience of every christian, that the brighter and 
firmer his hopes are of heaven, the more he desires 
to be made meet for it; and just in proportion as 
faith is to him the certain "evidence (or confidence) 
of things not seen," he presses with eagerness "to 
the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God 
in Christ Jesus." 

The doctrine of perseverance, then, to a true 
christian, is one of his greatest incentives to 
growth in grace; and every one upon whom it 
has a contrary effect, has much reason to doubt the 
reality of his religion. His love to God cannot be 
sincere, But, as our conversation has been suffi- 
ciently protracted at present, we will defer the 
Bible argument on the subject to another time. 



PERSEVERANCE, 135 

DIALOGUE XVL 

PERSEVERANCE. 

Convert, — There is one argument against the 
doctrine of perseverance, drawn from facts, that 
I have found difficult to meet, or answer, There 
are many cases of persons who give all the eviden- 
ces of a change of heart, and seem, for a time, to 
enjoy all the comforts and blessings of true religion, 
who return to the world and sin, and become worse 
than they were before. 

Minister. — They thereby prove, in the clearest 
manner, that their religion was vain. They have 
not had that sealing of the Holy Spirit, w r ith which 
he indelibly marks the heirs of grace. I know it is 
counted uncharitable to say, that all such had 
only a false hope, and that their house was only 
built on the sand; and, though by saying so, we 
come under the anathema of the zealous advocates 
of the doctrine of "falling from grace," we know 
we are not the first who have been thus denounced, 
and will likely not be the last. The doctrine of 
perseverance was one of the distinguishing doc- 
trines of the Reformation, and met with the bitter- 
est opposition from the Pope and his adherents. 
The Council of Trent decreed, that "if any person 
shall say that a man who has been justified cannot 
lose grace, and that, therefore, he who falls and sins 
w r as never truly justified, he shall be accursed." 
But, the denunciations of Papists, and other error- 
ists, cannot effect the truth of a doctrine plainly 



136 PERSEVERANCE. 

taught by the Savior himself. He tells us that ma- 
ny, who had such false hopes, will appear at the day 
of judgment, to whom he will say, "I never knew 
i/ou, depart from me, ye that w r ork iniquity." — Matt. 
7 : 23. Now, if the doctrine of "falling from grace" 
be true, some at that day could contradict the 
Judge, and tell him* "You did know me; I was re- 
generated by your Spirit; I was justified through 
your righteousness; pardoned through your blood; 
sanctified by }^our grace ; enjoyed seasons of com- 
munion with you ; you heard my prayers; called 
me brother; and I rejoiced that you were 'not 
ashamed to call me brother,' (Heb. 2 : 11,) for I was 
a true child of God." Now, it is very plain, that 
all this would be true, if any fall away, totally and 
finally, who once had true religion ; and the saying 
of the Judge, that he "never knew them," would not 
be true. But, the language of the Savior plainly 
teaches, that all professors of religion, who are final- 
ly lost, were only false professors, and were entire 
strangers to true religion. We are thus placed un- 
der the necessity of contradicting this plain state- 
ment of Christ himself, or of disbelieving that an) r 
who are true christians, will finally be lost. 

Con. — But, are there not other passages of Scrip- 
ture, which seem to favor the doctrine, that a chris- 
tian may totally and finally apostatize, and be eter- 
nally lost? 

Min. — There are several passages that make such 
a supposition, from which the advocates of the doc- 
trine think it clearly proved. It is, however, only 
supposed ; it is no where directly asserted : where- 
as, it is again and again directly asserted, that they 
shall not fall away. And, it is a plain dictate of 
common sense, that we should never make a suppo- 



PERSEVERANCE. 137 

skion contradict a positive assertion, or give the 
supposition a preference, to establish a doctrine 
which contradicts the assertion. There are such 
suppositions made respecting God himself. The 
Psalmist, in the eleventh Psalm, speaks of God be- 
ing the great foundation of his trust and hope, and 
adds, in the third verse, "If the foundations be de- 
stroyed, what can the righteous do ?" This is a sup- 
position that God would prove unworthy of our con- 
fidence, or should fail in his promises, &c. And 
the supposition is made to excite our gratitude, in 
contrasting our privilege of trusting in God, with 
the wretchedness of our condition, if that founda- 
tion were taken away, and we could no longer put 
our trust in him. Now, who would ever think of 
taking this supposition to prove the possibility of 
God failing us, as a rock upon which we may at all 
times trust with unwavering confidence? And yet, 
it is just as legitimate a course of reasoning, as to 
argue from the supposition of the christian being 
lost, that he may be. Such suppositions are fre- 
quent in the Bible, and they are not intended to 
teach, that the cases supposed will actually occur ; 
but, as in the case above, to show us the excellence 
of the opposite truth. 

Con. — But, are there no positive assertions in the 
Bible, that christians do, or may, finally and totally 
apostatize, and perish ? 

Min. — I have not been able to find a single pas- 
sage in which it is asserted ; and all the passages 
that I have seen quoted by the abettors of the doc- 
trine, amount to nothing more than suppositions. 
such as I have mentioned. One passage upon which 
they rely very much, is Ezek. 33 : 13 — "When I 
shall sav to the righteous, that he shall surely live ; 
10 



13S PERSEVERANCE* 

if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit ini- 
quity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered ; 
but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall 
die for it." It is supposed, by the most eminent 
commentators, that the "righteous" here spoken of r 
are to be understood as those false professors of 
whom Christ will testify, he never knew them. 
This understanding of the passage, is rendered more 
forcible from the fact, that they are warned against 
"trusting to their own righteousness," which is al- 
ways a characteristic of the false professor. If that 
be the import of the term, as here used, it affords no> 
proof, or even a supposition, of the true christian 
falling away. But, even if we understand by the 
term "righteous," true christians, it only amounts to 
a supposition, or, what is termed, a hypothetical 
statement. It contains a two-fold hypothesis : "If 
he trust to his own righteousness/' and if he "com- 
mit iniquity." Now, it will be admitted,. I thinks 
that there is no danger of a true christian "trusting 
to his own righteousness." Yet, the case is sup- 
posed; and, because it is supposed, is no proof that 
he will. Neither is the supposition of his- "commit- 
ting iniquity," so as finally and totally to aposta- 
tize, any proof that he will; 

But, another passage which is always quoted, and 
relied on, to prove the doctrine, is Heb. 6 : 4, 5, 6 — 
"For it is impossible for those who were once en- 
lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and 
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have 
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the 
world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them 
again unto repentance." This passage, you per- 
ceive, contains a supposition, and a positive assertion 
based upon it> The supposition is of the christian 



PERSEVERANCE. 139 

"'falling away," and the positive assertion is, the im- 
possibility of their being "renewed again unto re- 
pentance." But, those who plead it as proof that 
the supposed case may occur, overlook entirely the 
positive assertion, which directly disproves their 
whole system. They contend, that a true christian 
may fall away entirely, and be renewed again — that 
a person may be a child of God to-day, and a child 
of Satan to-morrow, and, again, a child of God the 
next day. They seem to forget entirely, that al- 
most all these hypothetical statements respecting 
falling from a state of grace, have coupled with the 
hypothesis, this positive assertion ; so, if these state- 
ments prove any thing at all respecting their system, 
it is, that it is false. But, they are hypothetical 
statements, which were not intended to prove, that 
the cases supposed would actually occur, but to show 
us the necessity of continuing in holiness to the at- 
tainment of final salvation. They are incentives 
to watchfulness, diligence, and prayer; and thus, 
are the means of our perseverance in grace. God 
deals with us in this, as in all things else, as ration- 
al creatures, and works upon us by means and mo- 
tives, addressed to our hopes and fears. This, I think, 
is plain from the content. The Apostle, after having 
given this solemn warning, adds, in the ninth verse, 
"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, 
and things that accompany salvation, though we thus 
speak" And then he goes on to speak of the "oath" 
and "promise" of God, that "we might have a strong 
consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold up- 
on the hope set before us." Thus, upon the suppo- 
sition that the Apostle, in this passage, is speaking 
of the true christian, it proves nothing for the Ar- 
minian. But, I am inclined to believe, that he is 



140 PERSEVERANCE, 

speaking of those who, in common language, "have 
sinned away their day of grace.*' We know that 
when a sinner has been visited with a great manv 
warnings, and made the subject of the operations oY 
the Holy Spirit, warning and convincing of sin, if 
he wickedly resist all, there is a point at which the 
forbearance and mercy of God will cease, and he- 
will be left to himself, to take the course he has de- 
liberately chosen. And when God says of any one, 
"let him alone," he is ''given up to his own heart's 
lusts:" for him there is no hope. And, though bv 
the word enlightening him, and the Spirit's striving, 
he has been brought almost into the kingdom, yet, 
he "'falls back into perdition." Xow, it seems to 
me, that the Apostle exactly describes the case of 
-uch an one ; and all he says, may characterize one 
who has never been truly converted. They were 
i, once enlightened." So are those who hear the 
Gospel, and understand its doctrines : they are not 
savingly enlightened, but enjoy the light of the Gos- 
pel in a very important sense. They have "tasted 
oi the heavenly gift." This is true of all God's 
creatures, and more especially of those who enjoy 
the blessings of the Gospel, and have, to any ex- 
Tent, felt the operations of the Spirit. They were 
"made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So is every 
sinner, who has been seriously impressed, in view 
of his sins and danger. They have "tasted the good 
word of God." So had the thorny ground and sto- 
ny ground hearers, in the parable of the sower. 
They have tasted, also, of the "powers of the world 
to come." It is difficult to determine what is the 
•precise meaning of this expression. If we are to 
mderstand by it, hopes of heaven, thousands have 
them Avho are not true christians. But, we can 



PERSEVERANCE. 



141 



found no argument upon a conjectural interpreta- 
tion. Then, as any and all these blessings may be 
enjoyed by those who are not true christians, it 
seems to me the most likely the Apostle is speaking 
of such. But, be that as it may; the passage, as 
we have seen, plainly contradicts the Arminian doc- 
trine of falling from grace, and being again renew- 
ed. There are other similar passages, but this, I be- 
lieve, is considered by them as the most conclusive 
in their favor, and consequently, the doctrine has 
very little support in the Bible. 

Con. — But, are there not commands and exhorta- 
tions, in different parts of the Scriptures, addressed 
to true christians, which seem to imply that they 
are in danger of being lost, if they indulge in sin ? 

Min. — The fact that God will preserve them, 
does not supersede the use of all legitimate means to 
secure the end. His purpose to save them, embra- 
ces all the means of its accomplishment. He save? 
by his word and ordinances, and a diligent improve- 
ment of opportunities and privileges. This being 
his instituted plan of effecting his purpose, exhorta- 
tions and admonitions do not necessarily imply any 
uncertainty as to the issue. They only point out the 
manner and order, in which the design will be accom- 
plished. Paul, in a storm at sea, exhorts the soldiers 
to remain in the ship, and work for their lives, and 
tells them if they went away they would all be lost : 
but, will any one say, that there was in reality any 
uncertainty as to the issue ? God had promised that 
they should be saved, and his character was at stake. 
But still, the exhortation of Paul, was one principal 
mean of their safety. So the exhortations and 
warnings addressed to christians, are made the 
means of their perseverance. 



142 PERSEVERANCE. 

But, let us now look at some of the plain declara- 
tions of the Bible on this subject. And here I would 
observe, that we are not compelled to resort to sup- 
positions and inferences, but have plain and positive 
statements, proving as clearly as language can prove, 
that true christians will be preserved to complete 
salvation. Ps. 89 : 30— 37— "If his children for- 
sake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if 
they break my statutes, and keep not my command- 
ments ; then will I visit their transgression with the 
rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless 
my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, 
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will 
I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of 
my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I 
will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for- 
ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall 
be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful 
witness in heaven." In this psalm, as in many oth- 
ers, David is made to personify Christ. This is 
plain from verse 27, and other parts — "I will make 
him my first-born, higher than the kings of the 
earth." In the 19th verse, God says — "I have laid 
help upon one that is mighty," &c. Indeed, the 
whole scope of the psalm shows that it is so to be 
understood. Then, the "children" that are spoken 
of, are the spiritual children of the Savior, true fol- 
lowers of the lamb. And, we can scarcely conceive 
how their security could be expressed in stronger 
language. Though they shall be chastised for their 
sins, yet his "loving kindness" will never be with- 
drawn, nor shall his "faithfulness fail." 

I might here properly refer to a melancholy in- 
stance of the lengths to which errorists will go, to 
support a favorite theory. In the "Doctrinal Tracts" 



PERSE VERANOE. 143 

of the Methodist Church, page 212, the writer, in 
endeavoring to evade the force of so plain a state- 
ment of the doctrine of perseverance, says, that the 
covenant spoken of in this 89th psalm, "relates 
wholly to David and his seed." He then misquotes 
the 35th verse. Instead of saying, "I will not lie 
unto David," he quotes it, "I will not fail David," 
And, to crown all, he says, "God did also fail Da- 
vid." "He did alter the thing that had gone out of 
his lips, and yet, without any impeachment of his 
truth. He abhorred and forsook his anointed. He 
did break the covenant of his servant," &c. The 
only reason he gives for saying that God broke his 
covenant is, that it was conditional. That it was 
not conditional, in the sense which he affirms, I will 
not now stay to prove; for, even if it were, it is still 
both false and impious to say, that "God broke his 
covenant, and altered the thing that had gone out 
of his lips," When a writer thus speaks of God, and 
misquotes his word, we need not be surprised at all 
his misrepresentations of Calvinism. 

But, let us see what Christ himself says on the doc- 
trine of perseverance. Matt. 24 : 24 — "There shall 
arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show 
great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were 
possible, they shall deceive the very elect." John 
10: 27 — 29 — "My sheep hear my voice, and I know 
them," (will he ever say he "never knew" them?) 
"and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal 
life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any 
man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which 
gave them me, is greater than all ; and no man is 
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Does 
not this look as if the Savior meant to teach that be- 
lievers are secure in the hands of God ? But, let us 



144 



PERSEVERANCE. 



hear Paul. Rom. S: 35 — 39 — "Who shall separate 
us from the love of Christ ! Shall tribulation, or 

distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or 
peril, or sword ? * * Xay, in all these things, we 
more than conquerors, through him that loved 
us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor 
life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor 
things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 

pth, nor any other creature, shall be able to sepa- 
rate us from the love of God. which is in Christ Je- 
sus our Lord." I cannot conceive how the doctrine 
could be stated in language more plain and forcible. 
I shall only add one passage more, though I might 
add scores. 1 Pet. 1 : 5— "Kept by the power of 
God, through faith, unto salvation." Here the 
whole doctrine of perseverance, through grace, faith, 
and holiness, is stated in a manner both concise and 
beautiful. 

If we needed arguments from inference and sup- 
position, we have them, too, in abundance. One, 
that seems to me incontrovertible, is drawn from the 
intercession of Christ. His prayer is — "Holy Fa- 
ther, keep through thine own name, those whom 
thou hast given me," Will the Father keep them, 
or deliver them over to Satan? We may leave the 
Arminian to answer. 

Other inferential proofs, equally conclusive, might 
be given, but I think I have said enough to show yon, 
that our Confession of Faith speaks the language of 
the Bible, and of common sense, when it says, chap. 
17, sec. 1 — ;, They whom God hath accepted in his 
beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his 
Spirit, can neither totally, nor finally, fall away from 
the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere 
therein to the end. and be eternallv saved." 



ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 145 



DIALOGUE XVII. 

ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 

Convert, — During the progress of our several 
conversations, on the different points of religious 
truth which we have considered, my mind has not 
only been relieved, but edified, and my desire to 
unite with some evangelical church has been in- 
creased. My preferences for the Presbyterian 
Church have also become stronger; but, still, with 
my limited knowledge, I do not know that I am 
prepared to say: "I sincerely receive and adopt 
the Confession of Faith, as containing the system 
of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures." My 
hesitancy does not arise from any opposition I 
have to any of its doctrines, but from my limited 
acquaintance with it. I have not, until recently, 
made it a study, and have not been able to com- 
pare it, in all its parts, with the Bible, so as to 
adopt it intelligently. And, I suppose, to adopt it 
"sincerely" means both a cordial and intelligent 
reception of all it teaches, as being in accordance 
with the Bible. And this, I have understood, you 
require of all your members. 

Minister. — While you have had a misrepresent- 
ation of our doctrines, you have also had a false 
representation of our practice. I know it is com- 
mon with those who wish to frighten young 
converts from joining our church, to tell them that 
they must have the Confession of Faith "crammed 
down their throats." But, our form of Government 



146 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 

does not require it, onr have I ever known a single 
mstance in which it has been required by any one 
of our church officers, that the members of the 
church should all adopt the Confession of Faith. 
It is required of all our church officers, but not of 
its members. It is not supposable, that all whom 
w r e might, in other respects, consistently receive to 
the church, are so well acquainted with all our doc- 
trines, as to adopt them intelligently. Some who 
do not oppose them, are sometimes at a loss to 
understand them. It is common, in some sections 
of our church, to require those who unite with us, 
to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, "as 
far as they are acquainted with it, and understand 
it;" but I have never known any one go farther. 

Con. — I could willingly and cheerfully do that, 
and cannot see any reasonable objection to such a 
course. But, does the Confession of Faith contain 
no general requirement on the subject? 

Min. — The "Directory for Worship, chap. 9, 
sec. 3, requires, that " those who are to be admitted 
to sealing ordinances shall be examined as to their 
knowledge and piety." And sec. 4 requires, that 
those who, when uniting with the church, receive 
the ordinance of baptism, shall, " in ordinary cases, 
make a public profession of their faith in the 
presence of the congregation." Thus, " knowledge 
and piety" are required of all, and a " public pro- 
fession of their faith," of those who, at the time, 
receive the ordinance of paptism. How far the 
examination, as to knowledge and piety, shall be 
extended, and what may be comprised in the public 
profession of faith, required of others, is left to 
each church session, to decide according to circum- 
stances. Thus, while piety, and knowledge to some 



ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 147 

extent, are made indispensable requisites to mem- 
bership in the Presbyterian Church, other things, 
though desirable, are not absolutely required. If 
a church session have satisfactory evidence that 
any one is a true child of God, and has knowledge 
of God and divine things, to such an extent, that 
he can profitably participate in the sealing ordinan- 
ces of the church, it is all they require. 

Con. — What is the common practice of church 
sessions in such cases? 

Min. — The candidate for admission is examined 
on some of the leading points of christian experi- 
ence, upon which, any one who has the exercise of 
a true christian, can easily give satisfaction. In 
connection with this, he is also examined on some 
of the leading doctrines of Christianity, especially, 
as conneccted with his experience. Thus, the 
ground of his hope is ascertained, and his faith in 
Christ is exhibited, which will qualify him for a 
member of the visible church; as, by regeneration 
and faith, he has been made a member of the body 
of Christ. 

This course must commend itself to every reflect- 
ing mind, as the safest, both for the church and 
those who wish to become its members. A person 
cannot profitably participate in the sealing ordinan- 
ces of the church, unless he have knowledge to 
discern the spiritual blessings which they represent. 
No one can rightly commemorate the Savior, in the 
ordinance of the Supper, if he have not faith and 
love. Neither would he make a suitable member 
of the church. All such members are an injury to 
the church, and their profession is an injury to 
themselves. To keep the church from being filled 
with such members, the framers of our excellent 



14S admission to the church. 

formularies made piety and a certain degree of 
knowledge, prerequisites to membership. But this 
was going as far as they felt warranted by the 
word of God. 

The General Assembly of our church speak 
particularly of this, in their pastoral letter of 1839 : 
"The terms of christian communion, adopted by 
our church, have been in accordance with the 
divine command, that we should receive one 
another as Christ has received us. We have ever 
admitted to our communion all those who, in the 
judgment of charity, were the sincere disciples of 
Jesus Christ. If, in some instances, stricter terms 
have been insisted upon — if candidates for sealing 
ordinances have been required to sign pledges, to 
make profession of any thing more than faith, love, 
and obedience to Jesus Christ, these instances have 
been few and unauthorized, and, therefore, do not 
affect the general character of our church. We 
fully recognize the authority of the command, 
* Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not 
to doubtful disputations.' The application of this 
command, however, is entirely confined to private 
members of the church. It has no reference to 
the admission of men to offices in the church," &c. 
(Minutes of the General Assembly for 1839, p. 183.) 

When such has always been the liberal policy of 
our church, you can perceive how much truth and 
honesty belong to those, who represent us as requi- 
ring all our members, to "swallow the Confession of 
Faith. 9 ' 

Con. — But, what is the reason of the distinction 
made between the officers, and members, of the 
church ? 

Min. — The officers are entrusted with the man- 



ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 149 

agement of all the concerns of the church ; and, it 
is a plain dictate of common sense, as well as of the 
Bible, that they should be men, who are not only 
well instructed in the doctrines of the church, but 
also cordially receive them. While the Bible com- 
mands us to stretch the broad wing of christian char- 
ity over all who give evidence of being true disci- 
ples of Christ, and to receive them to our christian 
fellowship, it is very pointed in its directions re- 
specting the qualifications of all who bear rule in 
the house of God. They must not be "novices." 
They must "hold fast the form of sound words." — 
2 Tim., 1 : 13. "Holding fast the faithful word, 
as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound 
doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gain- 
savers." — Tit. 1: 9. "Holding the mystery of the 
faith in a pure conscience." — 1 Tim., 3 : 9. This 
is in exact accordance with the requirement of our 
Confession, that all our officers should "sincerely 
receive and adopt" our form of sound words., I 
might mention many other passages bearing upon 
the same point, but it is not necessary, as the impor- 
tance of having all our officers, cordially and intelli- 
gently, to embrace the same system of faith, will be 
obvious, when you look at their stations and 
duties. Our church, in some sections, for a time, 
pursued a different policy, but it had nearly proved 
her ruin. 

Con. — But, is true piety made an indispensable 
requisite, in all who wish to unite with the church ? 
Min. — So far as the true state of any one can be 
ascertained, it is. No one can search the heart, but 
there are some points in christian experience, from 
which, in general, a correct judgment may be form- 
ed. And if, upon examination, any one gives satis- 



150 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 

factory evidence, that he has not experienced a 
change of heart, he is uniformly rejected. 

Con. — But, would it not be better to receive every 
one who applies ? Is not the prospect of conver- 
sion greater in the church, than out of it ? 

Min. — If the means of grace were accessible only 
to church members, there would be some reason for 
sinners to seek admission. But, that is not the case. 
All the array of means of God's appointment, for the 
conversion of sinners, is intended for, and brought 
to bear upon those who are out of the church. In- 
deed, when an unconverted sinner joins the church, 
he rather puts himself out of the way of many of 
those means of grace, which are intended for his 
benefit. Of what use, then, is a mere nominal con- 
nection with the church? A voluntary connection 
with the church, was by Christ and the Apostles 
considered a profession of religion, and has been so 
ever since. Indeed, if it were not so, there would 
be no distinction between the church and the world. 
I need not stay to show you the great utility and 
importance, of having the people of God united in 
a society, distinct, and separate from the world. 
Any thing that tends to break down this distinction, 
is ruinous in all its tendencies. And there is no bet- 
ter way to do it, than to have crowds of unconverted 
sinners gathered into the church. It is not only 
thus ruinous to the church, but it is injurious to the 
world, as it creates the impression, that a mere pro- 
fession of religion is all that is necessary. The Pres- 
byterian Church, for these reasons, has always made 
true piety an indispensable requisite, in all her 
members. I do not mean to say, that all her mem- 
bers are true disciples. We cannot, with all our 
care, judge the heart. We find that ministers and 



ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH, 151 

elders, even in the days of the Apostles, were some- 
times deceived in this matter; but, it is always our 
aim to guard it as well as we can. We know that 
the higher we can raise the church above the world, 
the more clear and manifest we can make the dis- 
tinction, the better it will be, both for the church 
and the world. 

Con. — Your practice in this seems to me both 
wise and scriptural. It is certainly a happy reflec- 
tion to any church member, that all his fellow-mem- 
bers have given satisfactory evidence to its officers, 
that they are true disciples of Christ. But, there 
are some other denominations who pursue a differ- 
ent course. I have heard ministers proclaim from 
the pulpit, that the proper course was, "first to join 
the church, and then seek religion," that "the 
church was the best place to get religion," &c. And 
I myself, was often urged to join their church, when 
they knew, as well as myself, that I had no change 
of heart, but was fighting against God, in all his love. 

Min. — I know that has become mournfully com- 
mon. Many have been thus persuaded, that they 
will gain God's favor by insulting him. If the 
church be not a religious society, what is it? It is- 
called the "household of the faithful, the body of 
Christ," &c. And, for any one to unite with it,, 
who does not belong to Christ, is making a false 
profession, and "lying both to God and man." It 
would be strange, indeed, if this were the way to 
secure the favor of the great Head of the Church. 

The Apostles pursued a very different course. 
They received to the church vast numbers, but we 
are told it was "of such as should be saved" — Acts 
2: 47. And we know, that the character of the 
church for piety, stood so high, that it was a living 



152 ADMISSION TO THE CHURCH. 

reproof to the world. So much so, that we are told, 
Acts 5 : 13, that "of the rest durst no man join him- 
self to them, but the people magnified them." 
What a commentary is this upon the practice of 
those who spend their zeal in gathering crowds of 
sinners, of all classes, into the church, seemingly 
more anxious that they should give their names to 
the church roll, than their hearts to God. 

Con. — But, would it not be better that, in the ex- 
amination of candidates, for admission to the church, 
it should be conducted by the w r hole church, instead 
of its officers merely ? The whole church, would 
then not only have the benefit of the candidate's ex- 
perience, if he be a true child of God, but it might 
be more satisfactory, also, that each member should 
hear and decide for himself. 

Min. — In some particular and remarkable cases 
of conversion, it would, no doubt, be edifying and 
useful, for all the members of the church to hear the 
candidate tell what God has done for him. But, 
particular cases should never be made the ground of 
a general rule ; and, I think, the experience of all 
churches who receive their members by a profession 
of their faith, as we do, will testify, that, as a gener- 
al rule, it is more proper and expedient, to have it 
done by the officers of the church. But, this in- 
volves one of the principal features of our form of 
church government, for which, we believe, we have 
scriptural authority and precedent. And a full and 
satisfactory consideration of this subject, would re- 
quire more time than we can now devote to it. But, 
if it would be gratifying to you, we will consider it 
at some future time. 

Con. — I have never had any difficulty on the score 
of church government. The Presbyterian form has 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 15^ 

Til ways struck me as wise and orderly, though my 
preferences for it are not the result of any exam- 
ination of its principles. I would, therefore, be glad 
to embrace any opportunity of examining it more 
particularly. 

Min, — Call when you have leisure, and I will en- 
deavor to explain it to you, in the light of the Bible 
and of common sense. 



DIALOGUE XVIIL 

CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

ConverL — As I mentioned to you at our last in- 
terview, I have never thought much on the subject 
of Church Government, and have looked upon it as 
•a matter of expediency merely; supposing there 
was no particular form authorized in the Bible, and 
consequently, it was left for the church to adopt any 
form of government that, according to circum- 
stances, might be deemed the most expedient. 

Minister. — It is inconsistent with the Savior's 
love to the church, and his care over her, to sup- 
pose, that in a matter affecting her interests so deep- 
ly, he would leave it entirely to the management of 
human wisdom. There are certain grand principles 
which the Bible gives for our direction, in all our 
duties toward our fellow-men, and especially as 
members of the church, in our duties to the church 
itself, and to each other individually. And, in devi- 
sing means for her peace, prosperity, and order, and 
11 



134 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

laboring for her and our spiritual welfare,, we sure- 
ly cannot suppose that we are left without direction 
by our great and glorious Head. For this very pur- 
pose, we are told, that he instituted certain orders 
of men in the church, with peculiar offices and du- 
ties. Eph, 4: 11, 12 — "He gave some Apostles, and 
some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pas- 
tors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the 
body of Christ." 1 Cor. 12: 28— "God hath set 
some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily proph- 
ets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts 
of healing,, helps, governments. " 

Con. — But some of these orders and gifts do not 
now exist, and may we not conclude that they were 
all only designed to continue for a time ? 

Min. — The extraordinary offices and gifts of those 
times are not now necessary, as the canon of revela- 
tion is complete ; but, as "pastors, " or "teachers, 
helps, and governments," are still necessary for the 
church in every age, they are continued. But, I 
mentioned those texts to show, that the officers of 
the church are of God's appointment. And, I be- 
lieve all evangelical denominations of christians ad- 
mit that some officers of the church, with peculiar 
duties, are divinely appointed, but all do not agree 
as to their number,, rank, and duties, and the man- 
ner in which they should be appointed by the church,, 
acting under the authority of her Head; and the 
difference of practice in these several particulars, 
constitutes the different forms of church govern- 
ment that now exist. 

Con. — How many different forms of church gov- 
ernment are there now found ? 

Min. — They may all be classed under four gener - 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 155 

al heads, viz. Popery, Episcopacy, Independency, 
and Presbyterianism. There are, it is true, several 
varieties under each of these general kinds, but they 
all partake of the essential features of one or other, 
to such a degree, that they clearly belong to that 
class. For instance, the Episcopal and Methodist 
churches, though differing in some respects, both 
have all the essential features of Episcopacy, and 
are in fact Episcopal in their government. And, on 
the other hand, Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyteri- 
ans, Associate Presbyterians, and Associate-Reform- 
ed Presbyterians, with the Dutch and German-Re- 
formed Churches, though they differ in some things 
as to church polity, all partake of the essential fea- 
tures of Presbyterianism, and are in fact Presbyte- 
rian in their government. There are also different 
shades of Independency or Congregationalism, some 
more and some less purely independent. 

Con. — What are the grand, distinguishing features 
of each of these several classes, in which they of 
each general kind agree? 

Min. — You will understand their different fea- 
tures better, by comparing them with civil govern- 
ments, for it is somewhat remarkable, that all the 
different kinds of civil government in existence, may 
be likewise classed under four general heads, partak- 
ing precisely of the same principles in civil matters, 
which church governments do in spiritual matters. 
Popery is a spiritual Monarchy of the despotic kind, 
and is in fact a complete Despotism — all power and 
authority being lodged with one man, who is su- 
preme head over all. Episcopacy is a spiritual Ar- 
istocracy — -all power and authority being lodged 
with a few, and those few not appointed by the 
people, but entirely independent of those whom they 



156 cnincii government. 

govern. The people have nothing more to do in 
the appointment of their rulers under Episcopacy, 
than under Popery. Independency is a spiritual 
Democracy — all power and authority being lodged 
With the mass of the people, and not transferable 
from them. I do not know of any existing form of 
civil government, which will compare with Indepen- 
dency, but we may suppose one. If, in case of trial 
for crime, or misdemeanor, the criminal were ar- 
raigned before the populace, instead of a court, and 
the whole mass of the people would hear the evi- 
dence and pleadings in the case, and a majority de- 
cide guilty, or not guilty, and that decision to be 
final, without any appeal to any other, or higher au- 
thority, this, in civil government, would correspond 
with Independency or Congregationalism in church 
government, which is a pure Democracy. 

Presby terianism is a spiritual Republicanism — the 
grand distinctive feature of which is, power and 
authority invested in those who are chosen by the 
people, as their representatives or agents, to rule in 
their name. Thus, it secures all the advantages of 
an aristocracy without any of its accompanying 
evils, and forms a union of all the different branches 
«'md sections of the government, more complete and 
binding than can be found in a. monarchy, because it 
is a union by consent of the people, and ratified by 
them, in their capacity of members of the communi- 
ty. In Independency, there is no union which binds 
the different parts together, with any thing like a 
common feeling of interest. Each congregation is 
entirely independent of all others, and acting arid 
living in its separate individual capacity, does not 
feel that it is an integral part of a common whole* 
bound by the same system of laws and regulations, 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 



15? 



Aristocracy and Monarchy preserve a union of the 
different parts, but they deprive the people of their 
inalienable rights, of choosing their own rulers, &c. 
Republicanism, whilst it secures union, leaves the 
people in full possession of all their rights and liber- 
ties. It leaves all free, yet brings all under law. It 
places none above law, and leaves none below it. 

Con. — But, if the Presbyterian form of church 
government be thus based upon republican princi- 
ples, how can it be said to be taken from the Bible. 
'Republicanism is of recent date, as I believe our own 
government is the only one that has ever existed 
upon pure republican principles. 

Min. — The close resemblance of our republican 
form of government to Presbvterianism, shows verv 
clearly that they have the same origin, but it proves 
that true republicanism has its origin in Presbvteri- 
anism. Any one who traces their points of similar- 
ity, must be convinced that they have the same or- 
igin. Presbvterianism has its several official de- 
partments, legislative, judicial, and executive, with 
this difference from our civil government, that all 
these duties in our church government, belong to 
the same set of men. Every church court sits and 
acts in these several capacities, as circumstances re- 
quire. And, when any church court is about to sit 
in a judicial capacity, it is the duty of the Modera- 
tor, who is the presiding officer, to remind the body 
of " their high character as judges of a court of Jesus 
Christ, and the solemn duty in which they are 
about to act. 5 ' — General Rules for Judicatories, 39. 
These duties, in our civil government, are vested in 
different bodies, but they all exactly correspond 
with our several church courts. Our church Session, 
as a judicial body, corresponds with our magistrate's 



158 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

court, the Presbytery with our county court, the 
Synod with our State court, and the General Assem- 
bly with our United States court. As a legislative 
body, the church Session corresponds with our town- 
ship officers, called in Ohio trustees, and in other 
States by different names. They meet, consult, de- 
vise measures, and make regulations for the general 
welfare of those who have chosen them to their 
office. The Presbytery corresponds with our board 
of county commissioners, the Synod with our State 
Legislature, and the General Assembly with the 
Congress of the United States. With each body, 
also, from the lowest to the highest, are the several 
executive officers, with whom the similarity is equal- 
ly striking. 

Add to this, the grand principle of delegated pow- 
er in a representative system, which forms the basis 
of both our civil and church governments, and the 
similarity is still more striking, Other points of sim- 
ilarity might be noticed, bat this is sufficient to 
show any one, that one is modeled after the other, 
preserving all the grand features and outlines entire. 

Con, — They must have had the same origin, but 
how r do we know that Presbyterianism is the origi- 
nal, and republicanism the model ? 

Mint. — From simple historical facts. We know- 
that Presbyterianism existed, in all its purity, long 
before our government was thought of, and even be- 
fore America was discovered. We know that it 
w r as persecution for Presbyterian principles, that 
drove our forefathers to this continent. For assert- 
ing their inalienable rights, and, in some instances, 
endeavoring to infuse republican principles into the 
governments of Europe, they were persecuted, and 
Hed to this country, bringing their principles with 



ciruncn government. £59 

>ihem. They had learned them from the Bible, and 
prized them dearer than life. These principles 
formed the basis of all their colonial governments, 
and when they were infringed upon by the mother 
country, they maintained them with their blood. 
The same grand principles of civil and religious lib- 
erty, for which they were persecuted, and fled to 
this country, were those which appeared conspicu- 
ous in the contest, and for which they contended in 
the arduous struggle. When their liberties were 
achieved, and the several colonial governments 
formed one grand confederacy, the same principles 
were embodied in the federal constitution. And 
there they stand, giving us more consistent liberty, 
both civil and religious, than has ever been enjoyed 
by any nation under heaven, except, perhaps, that 
found in the Theocracy of the Jews. The secret 
of our success as a republic is, that we have a gov- 
ernment, whose principles are the Republicanism of 
the Bible, which is only another name for Presbyfe- 
rianism. To Presbyterianism, then, as derived from 
the Bible, we are indebted for our excellent form of 
government. The sound of liberty — civil and reli- 
gious liberty — is delightful ; but it is an exotic in 
this dark world, and we should never forget, that 
those principles, in the successful operation of which 
we rejoice, are drawn from the treasure of God's 
word, which gives to us, under all circumstances, 
perfect rules of life. 

Con. — But, where do we find in the Bible, any set 
of laws or regulations, designed for civil govern- 
ments? The accounts we have of civil governments, 
are mostly of monarchies ; and, in the New Testa- 
ment times, christians were subjects of the despotic 
then in existence. I was not aware 



iSi> 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 



that republicanism, in any shape, was taught in the 
Bible. 

Min. — I know it is too generally thought, that 
the Bible is adverse to human liberty. But, I think 
I shall be able to show you, that the governments 
established by God, whether of Church, or State,, 
were all founded upon the same grand principles of 
Republicanism and Presbyterianism, which charac- 
terize ours. But, as this investigation would require 
more time than we can devote to it at present* wu 
will defer it until another time. 



DIALOGUE XIX. 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 



Convert. — Did I understand you as saying, at our 
last interview, that, according to Presbyterianism , 
all the authority and power of the officers of the 
church, were derived from the people? You did 
not, I believe, say so in words,, but I understood it 
as one of the principles of the system, that the 
power to rule must come from the people: and r 
yet, I cannot reconcile that with the Bible and the 
Confession of Faith, both of which acknowledge 
Christ as the fountain of all authority. 

Minister. — The power and authority which be- 
long to the office, are derived from Christ. AH 
church officers hold their commission from him. 
But,, the authority to exercise that power, inJiereii* 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. I6l 

in their respective offices, over any congregation, 
depends on the will of the people. If I am ordained 
a minister of the gospel, I have all the rights and 
privileges attached to that office, by the great Head 
of the church; but, I have no authority over any 
congregation that does not choose me as their pas- 
tor, or that does not voluntarily subject itself to the 
Presbytery of which I am a member. The same 
is true of elders; and thus, ministers and elders, are 
the elected representatives of the people, the rulers 
whom they have voluntarily chosen. The people 
choose the persons whom they wish to bear rule 
over them, and then look to the Head of the church 
to clothe them with the authority requisite to. con- 
stitute them their rulers. Thus, the authority of 
Christ, as Head of the church, and the grand prin- 
ciple of representation, are both acknowledged, and 
preserved in perfect harmony. And, in this too,, 
you can see another point in which republicanism 
shows its Bible origin. The people, m a republican 
government, elect their officers, but they do not 
commission them, or induct them into office. That 
must be done by the proper authorities. Election 
is not considered as, in itself, vesting men with the 
peculiar rights and privileges belonging to the office 
to which they are elected. But, when elected, they 
are, by the constituted authorities of the govern- 
ment, clothed with the proper authority, to act as 
the representatives of those by whom they are 
elected, and are invested with the rights and privi- 
leges belonging to their respective offices. 

Con. — I perceive the resemblance is striking ; but, 
that our form of civil government is derived from 
the Bible, is a fact, I think, very little regarded, it 
known, or thought of at all, by the generality of men. 



162 BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 

Min. — 1 know it is very little regarded, but still 
the facts are conclusive proof, that such is the case, 
The Bible gives us the first pattern of civil liberty 
and equality, that ever existed on republican princi- 
ples. The pride and selfishnes of man, naturally 
tend to the extremes of power and wealth on the 
one hand, and oppression and poverty on the other. 
But, that happy medium, where all are free and 
independent, yet all under law, none but God knew 
how to secure. And, in the examples he has given 
us in his word, we have a light to guide us, which 
stands out as a beacon amid the dark conflicting 
elements of all other systems. I wish to direct 
your attention, in the first place, very briefly, to 
the civil economy of the Jews, as established by 
God, when he brought them from Egyptian bond- 
age, and gave them civil and religious freedom. 
The different tribes formed one grand confederacy, 
similar to ours, each one being sovereign in itself, 
for all the purposes of self-government. The doc- 
trine of appeals, from the lower courts to the higher, 
is distinctly laid down; their highest court of appeal 
being the Sanhedrim, or seventy, corresponding to 
our federal court. The election of their rulers, 
was upon republican principles. Moses issues to 
them a proclamation: "Take ye ivise men, and 
understanding, and known among your tribes, and 
I will make them rulers over you," &c. That is, 
you elect, and I will commission, to their respective 
offices. Moses was their civil ruler, or president, 
first chosen by God himself, and afterwards by the 
common consent of the people. We do not read 
that there was a formal ratification of his appoint- 
ment, as there was in the case of Joshua, his suc- 
cessor. We find them saying to Joshua, "All that 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 163 

thou commandest us, we will do. * * * Ac- 
cording as we hearkened unto Moses, so will we 
hearken unto thee," &c. — Josh. 1: 16, 17. The 
power of their civil rulers, was very limited; and 
they were distinctly told, that even if they should 
choose a king, he must not consider himself in the 
light of a monarch. He must be chosen from 
among the people. He must not "multiply horses 
to himself " He must not "multiply to himself sil- 
ver and gold." &c. He must be under the law 
equally with the rest. His heart must not be "lifted 
up above his brethren" &c. — Deut. 17: 16 — 20. 
Indeed, it is doubtful whether their constitution 
and government could have been so perfectly free, 
and yet efficient, had it not been that God himself 
was, for four hundred years, the supreme execu- 
tive. When they desired a king, they were dis- 
tinctly reproved for their folly, and warned of the 
encroachment on personal and public liberty, which 
would be the consequence. But, even then, though, 
at their request, the executive authority was placed 
in the hands of a king, the republican form of gov- 
ernment was not changed. 

Con. — But, how could a republican form of gov- 
ernment exist under a king? 

Min. — The person who was nominated for their 
king by God, was accepted by the people, by accla- 
mation; and, though called a king, and invested 
with executive authority, was, in fact, nothing more 
at first, than "commander-in-chief" of a Republic. 
His power and authority were limited, and regula- 
ted by a covenant or constitution, called "the man- 
ner of the kingdom," which was distinctly declared 
to the people; and, being ratified by them, was 
recorded in a statute book, and preserved as the 



164 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 



palladium of their rights. "Samuel wrote it in a 
book, and laid it up before the Lord." — 1 Sam. 10: 
25. We find the popular side of the government 
was so completely predominant, that even David 
did not dare openly to take the life of the lowest 
of his subjects, or even to punish offenders. When 
Uriah stood in his way, he had to resort to strata- 
gem ; and, when Joab deserved death, he dare not 
execute it himself. "These sons of Zeruiah," he 
says, "are too hard forme." Their influence w r as 
so great, that he found it impossible to have them 
condemned by the proper authorities, without w r hich 
he dare not proceed against them. These princi- 
ples, however, w r ere afterwards lost sight of, the 
people became corrupt, and their kings became des- 
pots; but, for four hundred years, they enjoyed a* 
much freedom in their government, as is consistent 
with efficiency, in any age that the world has yet 
seen, or probably will see. 

Another excellent feature of this republican sys- 
tem, was the equal distribution of their land, by 
which every adult male was a landholder — the veri- 
table owner of the soil on which he lived. There 
were no entailed estates, no hereditary nobility. 
Every family possessed its own land. This simple 
principle of ownership, in fee-simple, of the soil, is 
one of vast importance to a republican government. 
Indeed, it would seem to be one of its essential fea- 
tures. It encourages industry, inculcates patriot- 
ism, and is one of the main springs of civil liberty. 
Provision was made, in the laws given by God to 
Moses, for the perpetual preservation of this princi- 
ple, so long as their constitution w r as held sacred. If, 
through misfortune, or other contingencies, any 
family was compelled to sell their land, it could 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 1 85 

not be alienated from the family longer than the 
year of jubilee. So that every fifty years, the land 
reverted back to its original owners, in the regular 
line of descent. The law respecting the ownership 
of land, is very minutely laid down in the 25th chap- 
ter of Leviticus. w r hich, if you have never examined 
particularly, will amply repay you for an attentive 
perusal. It shows divine wisdom, in its excellent 
provisions. A man, by carelessness, or wickedness, 
might deprive himself of all the benefits arising from 
ownership in land ; but, no vice, or slothfulness, or 
misfortune, could deprive his family of their portion 
of the soil. 

In the setting apart of the tribe of Levi as public 
instructors, there was provision made for a general 
system of education, which resulted most happily, 
in raising the whole mass of the people, to a degree 
of refinement and intelligence, then not equalled in 
the world. 

Con. — But, where do w^e find, in the laws given 
by God to Moses, any thing like a civil constitution, 
or a system of laws expressly designed for their civ- 
il economy ? 

Min. — In those law r s we find three classes. First, 
those which are called moral, which are obligatory 
on all men, under all circumstances, universally and 
perpetually. Second, those which are called cere- 
monial, w r hich prescribe the rites and forms of the 
Jewish worship. Third, those which are called jzi- 
dicial, which relate entirely to their civil economy, 
and in which we find all the principles which I have 
mentioned as the prominent features of republican- 
ism, standing out qonspicuously. They preserve, in 
the hands of the people, as much personal liberty as 
ever was, or perhaps can be, combined with a per- 



166 



BIBLE REPUBLICANISM. 



manent and efficient national government. These 
laws, moreover, were formally adopted by the peo- 
ple. When Moses rehearsed to them the w^ords of 
God, they answered with one unanimous voice — 
"All the words which the Lord hath said, we will 
do." Thus their laws, their civil constitution, was 
accepted and adopted. This adoption of their con- 
stitution, was repeated at the death of Moses; and, 
by a statute, ever after, from generation to genera- 
tion, once in seven years, the tribes were required 
to meet in a great national convention, solemnly to 
ratify their constitution. 

From this very brief view of the Jewish govern- 
ment, you may see the origin of those principles of 
civil and religious liberty, which prove so rich a 
blessing wherever adopted, and fairly carried out. 

Con. — But, is there any proof that their ecclesias- 
tical affairs were conducted upon the same princi- 
ples ? 

Min. — I have before remarked, that for four hun- 
dred years, in the Theocracy of the Jews, God him- 
self was the supreme executive. Consequently, 
their civil and ecclesiastical polities were blended, to 
a considerable extent, in one system. Their sever- 
al courts seem to have had the adjudication of all 
matters, both civil and religious. This was neces- 
sary, considering the circumstances under which the 
Jewish government was instituted and existed. It 
seems to have been the object of God, in establish- 
ing the Mosaic economy, to fortify his people against 
idolatry, and preserve a pure religion, as well as to 
stop the march of despotism, lust and blood, which 
darkened and cursed the w T hole world besides. The 
nations of the earth had cast off his allegiance, and 
turned their back upon him, and his commandments. 



BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 167 

He chose for himself a nation to whom he commit- 
ted his word and his worship, and who, as a pattern 
of excellence in all respects, might exhibit to an 
apostate world the "blessedness of that nation 
whose God is the Lord." It was, therefore, neces- 
sary, that God should appear conspicuous as their 
immediate lawgiver and executive, in all that pertain- 
ed to their welfare, both civil and religious. The 
blessed effects of true religion upon a national gov- 
ernment, was also to be exhibited, and, consequently, 
we find their civil and ecclesiastical polities blended 
in one system. Even their great national conven- 
tion, at which they deliberated upon, and, if neces- 
sary, modified their constitution and laws, was called 
"an holy convocation." Their church government, 
therefore, partook of the same features which char- 
acterized their civil government, and here we find 
Presbyteriamsm in all its essential features. But, 
as on this point I wish to be a little more specific, 
we will take some other opportunity to consider it 
more at length, than our time at present will permit. 



DIALOGUE XX.. 

BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 



Conve? % t. — Since our last conversation, I have 
been examining, to some extent, the account we 
have in the Bible respecting the government of the 
Jews, as established by Moses, according to the di- 
rection of God, and find very frequent mention mad$ 



IN BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 

of "Eiders" who seem to have been orhcers or ru- 

DQong them. - : :le and < 

that the oriice and title of •• 
s - m is den 
Minister. — The term Eider, lit 

rd in the original ._ _ 
of the Bil r. .. 

:: rienee were usually selected bo ill sfeb 
i and trust, because- trf the 
and wisdom : consequently, the I 

ffice. The title- ■:•: Aide 
\ and others, are of the same origin 
term P rest :- \ is simply the Greek word for Elder. 
transferred into our language with : slight change 
>graj iy, without being transit 
The which the 

title signified with the ^Elders of Israel,' 9 that is, 
the Eiders of tl pterian Church bold a similar 

stati .. with similai duties and obli Tl = 

~ -; ■'." seem ::■■ have been the acknowi- 
represeu ig for them, 

i their name. Even during their bondage h 
E gyptg they s have hs 

termed Eiders oil; 

behalf of the people. God sai: 3x. 3: 

— and gather the El together, 

and say unto them." t lessage 

: whole mass of th le a and 

no do igoed for them^ 

command: 

but to re:enta*' 

it would consequently be, to mm 

him "the E . he should fro with 

the m . 3 : iS,) that 



BIBLE PRESBYTERIAN1SM, 169 

•he might see that it was the voice of the whole con- 
gregation of Israel speaking through their Elders. 
Moses himself was not counted sufficient, which 
shows they had no ariMocracy ; the people were not 
required to attend, which is contrary to independen- 
cy ; but the Elders of" the people were called, to 
w r hom it was committed*. 

Con. — But, we read frequently, that God told 
Moses to "speak unto the children of Israel ;" from 
which it would seem., that the people themselves 
were most generally appealed to. 

Min. — In such cases, we are to understand the 
direction of God to Moses, to be in accordance with 
their established usage. He had, in the first in- 
stance, named the Elders particularly, as those 
through whom Moses should communicate to the 
people his messages ; and, consequently, it is to be 
understood, that when God tells him to "speak unto 
the children of Israel," he meant that he should com- 
municate with them through the same channel. 
This is plain from the fact, that it would be impos- 
sible for Moses to deliver his messages to the whole 
congregation of the people. It was impossible, in 
their circumstances, to assemble the whole multi- 
tude ; and, if assembled, he could not speak to them 
all. It is, therefore, most natural to suppose, that it 
was always done through the Elders, especially, 
seeing that they are so frequently mentioned as those 
through whom God and Moses communicated with 
the people. In Ex. 17: 5, 6, the Elders were se- 
lected to witness the miracle of striking the rock in 
Horeb. We find them, also, on other occasions, se- 
lected for similar purposes. — Ex. 24: 1, 9. 

The principle of representation is very strik- 
ingly exhibited in Lev. 4: 13 — 15 — "If the whole 
12 



nO BIBLE PKESBYTERIANISM. 

congregation sin," &c., "The Elders of the congre- 
gation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bul- 
lock," brought for a sin offering. Here it is plain y . 
that the Elders were viewgd as representing the 
whole congregation: and, wfat they did in the name 
of the congregation, was accepted by God as the 
act of the whole. / 

In many instances during the journey ings of the 
Israelites through the wilderness, the Elders are 
spoken of as being called together by Moses, to de- 
liberate on important matters, or to receive commu- 
nications for the people. The following passages 
vou may note down and consult at vour leisure — Ex, 
18: 12; Numb. 11: 16,25; Deut'25: 7; 29: 10;. 
31: 28; 33: 7; Josh. 24-. 3L In these and many 
other passages, you will find Elders spoken of m 
their official capacity,, as acting authoritatively for,, 
and in behalf of the people. Their eare over the 
morality and religion of the people, and the benefi- 
cial effects of their supervision, is spoken of in Josh,. 
24: 31 — "Israel served the Lord ail the days of 
Joshua,, and of the Elders that overlived Joshua,, 
and which had known all the works of the Lord 
that he had done for Israel." The frequent men- 
tion made of them through the whole period of the 
Jewish history, shows very clearly, that even in. 
their lowest condition, they did not lose sight en- 
tirely of the principles upon which their govern- 
ment was first established. 

Con. — But, when their civil government was 
changed under their kings, would it not also have 
the effect of changing, or modifying, their system 
of church government, seeing that they were so in- 
timately connected in their first establishment? 

Min. — To what extent their civil government be- 



JtfBLE PRESBYTfcRlANlSM. l?l 

•came changed, it is difficult to ascertain. It was 
more or less despotic under their different kings, in 
proportion as each one was disposed to regard his 
duty to God and man. Still, however, we find 
some traces of republicanism^ in the darkest periods 
of their history. But, as the civil government be- 
came changed^ the church seems to have separated 
from it. We find m the synagogue service and or- 
der, a system of church government entirely distinct 
and separate, comprising in itself a complete system 
of church polity. It is, indeed, contended by some 
very able biblical scholars, that this distinction be- 
tween the civil and ecclesiastical polities of the 
Jew r s, existed from the first setting up of the taber- 
nacle in the wilderness. There can be [no doubt, 
however, that it existed afterwards in the order and 
service of their synagogues. 

Con. — When was the synagogue service first es- 
tablished ? 

Min* — It perhaps cannot be clearly ascertained, 
Philo, in his life of Moses-, gives some good reasons 
•for the opinion that it was instituted by him. Di\ 
Prideaux contends-, that it could not have existed 
previous to the return of the Jews from their cap- 
tivity in Babylon. His reasoning, however, is not 
conclusive, He founds his opinion mainly upon the 
fact, that the reading and expounding of the Scrip- 
tures then extant, was the most prominent of the 
synagogue services, and as copies of the Scriptures 
were not generally distributed previous to the cap- 
tivity, the synagogue service, he thinks, could not 
have existed. The other services of the synagogue, 
however, praise, prayer, and exhortation, might 
have existed previously ; and, after the captivity, 
reading and expounding the law may have been 



172 BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 

added. It does not appear that the Jews were at 
any time restricted to any particular place for the 
performance of their devotional exercises, though 
their sacrifices could only be offered at the taberna- 
cle, or temple. We know that praise and prayer 
were offered, and instruction given, at the "schools 
of the prophets," of which we find mention made as 
early as the days of Samuel. How long before 
Samuel they were instituted, cannot be clearly as- 
certained. The devout Israelites were in the habit 
of assembling at these schools, for the purposes 
of devotion and instruction, on their new moons 
and Sabbaths. 1 Sam. 10: 5—11 ; 19 : 18—24. 2 
Kings, 4: 23. The natural course would be, that 
these places for meeting w T ould be multiplied, as the 
wants of the people seemed to demand, and a regu- 
lar order of conducting divine worship would be in- 
troduced. In Ezek. 14: 1, and 20: 1, compared 
with Neh. 8 : 17, 18, we have intimations that such 
was the case. In Ps. 84, there seems to be a direct 
allusion to such places of worship ; and, in Ps. 74 : 
8, the Psalmist, speaking of the desolations wrought 
by their enemies, says expressly, "They have burnt 
up all the synagogues of God in the land/' 

The most natural conclusion, therefore, is, as it 
seems to me, that the prophets and holy men — "the 
Elders of Israel" — under the direction of God, insti- 
tuted the synagogue service at a very early period, 
lirst by devout assemblies at the schools of the proph- 
ets, and the houses of holy men ; and, these domes- 
tic congregations being multiplied, as the wants of 
the people seemed to demand, and becoming fixed in 
certain places, a distinct system of church polity, and 
a regular order of conducting divine service, was in- 
troduced. This point, however, is not of much im- 



BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 173 

portance to our present inquiry. We know that 
there was such a system in existence when our Sa- 
vior came upon earth; and, that when the Christian 
church was set up as a regular organization by the 
Apostles, they adopted the order of the synagogue. 

Con. — But, was that Presbyterian ? 

Min. — In every synagogue, there was a bench of 
Elders, consisting of three or more persons, who 
were entrusted with its whole government and dis- 
cipline. The synagogues were the parish or dis- 
trict churches of the Jews, in which the Elders, as a 
court, or bench of rulers, received members, judged, 
censured, and excluded, or excommunicated. Their 
sentence of excommunication, was termed "putting 
him out of the synagogue" — John 9 : 22, and 12 : 
42 — and the Elders were called "the rulers of the 
synagogue," of whom we have frequent mention in 
the New Testament. We find, therefore, that in 
the synagogues, all the essential principles of Pres- 
byterianism were universally established. The sim- 
ilarity in every important point, was exact. We 
find, also, that in addition to this bench of Elders 
in each synagogue, there was one principal overseer, 
who was called the "Bishop," or "Angel of the 
church," who was the presiding officer, or Modera- 
tor. From these lower courts, also, there was an 
appeal to the "great synagogue" at Jerusalem ; thus 
blending the whole community together as one visi- 
ble professing body. 

In this, I believe, all commentators and biblical 
scholars agree, be their prepossessions as to church 
government what they may. Did time permit, I 
could quote to you Stillingfleet, Vitringa, Selden, 
Grotius, Lightfoot, Thorndike, Burnet, Godwin, Ne- 
ander, Spencer, and others, who all agree, in every 



174 BIBLE PRESBYTERIANISM. 

important point, respecting the order and polity &i 
the synagogue. The testimony of these eminent 
men, is rendered more conclusive from the fact, that 
they were not Presbyterians, with, perhaps, one or 
two exceptions. I might also quote Dr. Gill, and 
Dr. Adam Clarke, as teaching the same truth. The 
extensive learning and deep research of these emi- 
nent men, no competent judge will call in question ; 
and, as one was a Baptist and the other a Metho- 
dist, they cannot be accused of favoring Presbyte- 
rianism, farther than in giving what they conceived 
to be the plain sense of the Scriptures. 

The first converts to Christianity were mostly na- 
tive Jews, and as they had been accustomed to the 
exercise of church government in the manner spe- 
cified, entirely distinct from the temple worship, 
which was ceremonial and typical, it is not surpri- 
sing that it should be adopted by the Apostles in the 
organization of the primitive, church. That this 
was the case, we have abundant evidence, which is 
so conclusive that it seems to me a matter of wonder 
that it should be controverted, At a future time, I 
will give you a brief summary of the evidence that 
the primitive church was truly Presbyterian, and 
continued so until it was corrupted by Popery „ 
which will, I think, convince you of the Scriptural 
warrant for Presbyterianismu 



PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. 175 

DIALOGUE XXI. 

PRIMITIVE PRESBYTER1ANISM. 

Convert — A difficulty has occurred to my mind 
since our last conversation, respecting the officers 
of the synagogue. You spoke of Elders, but I do 
not recollect that you said any thing about Minis- 
ter&t as belonging to the established order of the 
synagogue, unless the presiding officer, " the Angel 
of the church," acted in that capacity. 

Minister, — It was one of the duties of the chief 
rulers of the synagogue, to teach the people from 
the scriptures. This they did sometimes by way 
of conference, or questions and answers, and some- 
times by continued discourses, like sermons. These 
different ways of teaching they called by the gen- 
eral name of searching, and the discourse was called 
a search, or inquiry. The chief ruler or president, 
also invited others, whom he thought capable, to 
speak in the synagogue; and that honor was gener- 
ally offered to strangers, if any were present who 
were thought to have the gift of speaking. — Luke 
4: 16—22; Acts 13: 14, 15. These presidents, or 
chief rulers, together with the bench of Elders, 
were called rulers. Hence, in the primitive church, 
•the preacher or pastor, together with the bench ol 
Elders, were called by the general name of Elders. 
Paul, in giving instruction to Timothy, tells him, 
■" Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy 
of double honor, especially they who labor in the 
word and doctrine." — 1 Tim- 5: 17. From which it 



176 



PRIMITIVE PRESFYTERIANIS35. 



is plain, that there was a class of Elders, who did not 
labor in word and doctrine. Peter called himself an 
Elder y and we know he was a preacher. We know . 
also, that there were Elders who ruled, yet did not 
preach, because there was a plurality of them 
ordained in every church, however small, and we 
cannot suppose that in every church they had a 
plurality of pastors. 

Con. — But how do we know that these Pastors 
and Elders sustained the same office, and were 
clothed with the same authority, which we now 
find invested in the officers of the Presbyterian 
Church ? 

Min. — We find the Elders represented as " over- 
seers" of the church. " Take heed therefore unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." — Acts 20 : 28. 
They are also called rulers. "Let the Elders that 
rule well" — 1 Tim. 5: 17; " Obey them that have 
the rule over you," &c. — Heb. 13: 17. The people, 
too, are exhorted to obey them, to submit to them, 
&c, as to persons charged with an oversight of 
their spiritual interests. * And we beseech you, 
brethren, to know them which labor among you ? 
and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and 
to esteem them very highly in love for their work's 
sake.— 1 Thes. 5: 12, 13. "Obey them that have 
the rule over you, and submit yourselves," &c. — 
Heb. 13: 17. Now, when we find a plurality of 
Elders ordained in every church, and one of these 
Elders "laboring in word and doctrine," and others 
not; and when we find that the people were 
exhorted to obey them, and submit to them in the 
Lord; and, also, that these Elders were chosen by 
the people,, and ordained to their office by the lay- 



PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM*. 177 

ing on of hands; we have all the essential prin- 
ciples of Presbyterianism. This will appear to you 
the more plain, when you recur to the fact I before- 
noticed, that the term Presbyter is the same with 
Elder. In the one case it is translated, and in the 
other it is simply transferred, with a slight change 
in orthography. 

Con. — But we find the word Bishop often used 
to denote an office then existing in the church, and 
does not this fact afford some ground for Episcopacy? 

Min. — -The term "Bishop," like that of Presbyter, 
is transferred into our language without being trans- 
lated. It means an overseer, and we have it so 
translated in several instances. "Take heed to 
yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers" (or Bish- 
ops.) — Acts 20: 28. The Elders are styled Bishops, 
as they have the oversight of the flock, and the 
terms Bishop, and Elder, are titles given inter- 
changably to the same persons, which plainly 
shows that the term Bishop was no more than the 
title which designated the pastor, or overseer of 
a single church. We do not find in the New 
Testament a single trace of Episcopacy, in its mod- 
ern form. Indeed, the placing of one minister above 
another is expressly forbidden. There is but one 
commission given by the Lord Jesus Christ to his 
ministers: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father and of the Son 
and of the Holy Ghost." And any thing like one 
minister being placed higher in authority than the 
rest, and having rule over them, and possessing 
alone the power of ordination, is directly in the 
face of the commands of Christ, and all the institu- 
ted order of the primitive church. There is not a 



178 



PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. 



solitary instance in all the New Testament, of an 
ordination being performed by a single individual, 
but the power is uniformly represented as being 
possessed, and exercised, by the ordinary pastors, 
and performed by the "laying on of the hands of 
the Presbytery."—! Tim. 4: 14; Acts 13: 3; 
which corresponds with Presbyterianism, and with 
Presbyterianism alone. That this was the form of 
church government adopted by the Apostles, and 
left in universal use when these inspired men left 
the church to their successors, it really seems almost 
impossible that any impartial and candid reader of 
the New Testament can entertain a doubt. 

Con. — But, have we also authority, or precedent, 
for the several church courts which we find in use 
in the Presbyterian Church? 

Min. — It is very plain, that the whole church, as 
it then existed, however scattered, was regarded as 
one body, all goverened by the same laws, and sub- 
ject to the same authority. When a subject of 
importance arose, about which there was diver- 
sity of opinion, we find the matter considered and 
decided by a synod composed of the " Apostles and 
Elders." — Acts 15. We have in this chapter an 
account of the doings of the Synod, which met at 
Jerusalem, and have it particularly stated, that their 
decision respecting the overture which was brought 
before them, was sent down to " all the churches," 
carrying with it the authority of the synod for their 
regulation. We find, also, that this decree with 
others, was recorded and delivered to the churches, 
to be registered, preserved and obeyed. As Paul 
and Timothy " went through the cities, they deliv- 
ered them the decrees for to keep, which were 
ordained by the Apostles and Elders which were at 



PRIMITIVE PRESBYTEttlANISM. 179 

Jerusalem." — Acts 16: 4. Here then, we find an 
assembly of Ministers and Elders acting as the rep- 
resentatives of the whole church, and pronouncing 
authoritative decisions, which were intended to 
bind the whole body. If this be not Presbyterian- 
ism, we will search for it in vain, either in Scotland 
or America. 

Con. — How long did the church continue under 
Presbyterian government, and what was the cause 
of the change? 

Min. — It is difficult to ascertain precisely the time 
of the first departure from Presbyterianism. The 
change was, no doubt, small at firt, and thought to 
be trivial. Clemens Romanus, an eminent Father, 
who lived near the close of the first century, in a 
letter directed to the Christians at Corinth, chides 
them for having, at the instigation of a few leading 
men, departed, in one respect, from the wise and 
wholesome system of church government estab- 
lished by the Apostles. "It is a shame," he writes, 
"yea, a very great shame, to hear that the most 
firm and ancient church of the Corinthians, should 
be led, by one or two persons, to rise up against 
their Elders. * * * Let the flock of Christ 
enjoy peace, with the Elders that are set over them. 
* ,# > % Do ye, therefore, who first laid the foun- 
dation for this sedition, submit yourselves to your 
Elders." Two things are plain from these expres- 
sions. First, that the Corinthian Church had been 
organized upon Presbyterian principles, and had so 
continued for a time, probably during one genera- 
tion. Second, that a departure from it, was viewed 
by this eminent Father as deserving of censure, 
This, however, was only a solitary case, and the 
defection did not become general for a length uf 



ISO PRIMITIVE fRESBYTERIANISM. 

time afterwards. But, it shows how prone men are 
to depart from the simplicity of the order of the 
primitive times. The testimony of the Fathers is 
abundant and clear, that the church, in general, 
continued to enjoy the primitive Presbyterian form 
of government for at least two centuries. Did time 
permit, I might quote to you, Ignatius Polyearp, 
Ireneus, Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jus- 
tin Martyr, and others* as stating the same truths, 
that in the early ages of the church, the different, 
distinct churches, were under the care of a Bishop, 
or Pastor, and a bench of Elders, and that there 
was no priority, or pre-eminence of rank among 
the ministers. Indeed, for the first two hundred 
years after Christ, we find no trace of either Pre- 
lacy or Independency, except they may be traced 
in the few departures from Presbyterianism, which 
we find condemned and censured by the Fathers. 
Ambrose, who lived in the fourth century, in his 
commentary on 1 Tim. 5:1, says, that " the syna- 
gogues, and afterwards the church, had Elders, 
without whose counsel nothing was done in the 
church, which grew into disuse, by what negligence^ 
I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather 
the pride, of the Teachers, while they alone, wished 
to appear something." That there were Elders 
and Teachers, as distinct classes of officers in the 
primitive church, Ambrose asserts positively, and 
expresses his opinion, that they "grew into disuse, 
from the sloth or pride of the teachers." We find 
from the history of those times, that both the Min- 
istry and Eldership of the church, declined in zeal 
and faithfulness. The pictures given of the cupid- 
ity, mutual encroachments and strife of the clergy, 
even in the third century, by Cyprian, Origen, and 



PRIMITIVE PRESBYTEUIANISM. 1^1 

Kusebius, are truly mournful. In such a state of 
things it is not surprising, that the simplicity of the 
primitive church gave place to a system which 
flattered ambition, and fed voluptuousness. Among 
such ministers, a grasping after preferment, titles, 
&c, might be confidently expected. The pastors 
in the large cities, and more opulent towns, began 
to claim a pre-eminence and peculiar powers, which 
by little and little were admitted, and at length 
established, as a part of the order of Christ's house. 
And, finally, the bishops became "lords over God's 
heritage," rather than "ensamples to the flock;" 
and to crown all, one was proclaimed "universal 
Bishop," under the title of Pope, — declared to be 
the "Vicar of God," — with universal, unlimited 
authority over the souls and bodies of all men in the 
world. 

Con. — And was the primitive order of the church 
so entirely lost in this universal corruption, that 
none remained to bear witness to the truth ? 

Min. — The Paulicians we find, in the seventh 
century, testifying against the encroachments of 
Prelacy, and afterwards the Waldenses and Albi- 
genses, still more distinctly and zealously, protested 
against the errors of the times, and especially, the 
encroachments on Presbyterian simplicity. It was, 
indeed, supposed that the Waldenses were prior to 
the Paulicians. The noted Reinerius, who lived 
near three hundred years before Luther, and had 
once resided with the Waldenses, though he after- 
wards became one of their bitterest persecutors, in 
a treatise he wrote against them, ascribes to them 
a very early origin. He said they were "the 
most pernicious to the Church of Rome of all other 
heretics, for three reasons. First, because they 



183 PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERIANISM. 

were older than any other sect, for some say they 
have been ever since Pope Sylvester, (A. D. 314.) 
and others say from the time of the Apostles/' 
Their origin is too remote to be traced with dis- 
tinctness and certainty. That they were Presbyte- 
rian, both in doctrine and order, mast be admitted 
by all. John Paul Perrin, their historian, who was 
one of their ministers, speaks particularly of their 
Elders and Pastors, as distinct classes of officers in 
the church, and represents their Synods as composed 
oi Ministers and Elders. Gillis, another historian 
of the Waldenses, quotes their Confession of Faith, 
as containing the following declaration: "It is 
necessary for the church to have Pastors, to preach 
God's word, to administer the sacraments, and to 
watch over the sheep of JesusChrist; and also 
Elders and Deacons, according to the rules of good 
and holy church discipline, and the practice of the 
primitire church" This not only shows beyond 
doubt, that the Waldenses were Presbyterians, but 
it also shows what they believed respecting the 
Presbyterianism of the primitive church. Other his- 
torians of undisputed authority, assert the same res- 
pecting the Waldenses, and the Bohemians, and the 
Albi^enses, who were different branches of the 
same people, and called by different names, as they 
lived at different times, and in different places. 
More-land, Ranken, Comenius, Bucer, and others, 
all give decisive testimony to the fact, that these 
witnesses for the truth, during the long period oi 
darkness and corruption which overspread the 
church, were decidedly Presbyterian, both in doc- 
trine and order. 

Thus I have endeavored to give you a very brief 
and hasty view of Presbyterianism, from the days 



PRESBYTERIANI9M OF THE REFORMERS. 183 

of the Apostles to the Reformation by Luther. To> 
the facts that I have stated, volumes of testimony 
might be given, but circumstances would only per- 
mit us to glance at a small part of it. But, from 
what has been said, you can perceive the puerile 
ignorance manifested by those who alledge that 
Presbyterianism was invented by Calvin. 

Con. — Were the Reformers Presbyterian in their 
sentiments and practice? 

Min. — All the Reformers, of any note, agreed 
upon all the essential principles of Presbyterian- 
ism. But, as our conversation has been sufficiently 
protracted at this time r we will, on some future 
occasion, examine w r hat history says on that point* 



DIALOGUE XXII. 

PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 

Convert. — In our former conversations I have not 
iioticed, that among the officers of the Presbyterian 
Church, you said any thing respecting Deacons, yet 
they are frequently mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment; and I find, also y mention made of them in 
the Confession of the Waldenses. They are also,. 
I believe, in most Presbyterian Churches that I am 
acquainted with. 

Minister. — The office of Deacon is a very impor- 
tant one, and should be found in every church, 
where circumstances require and admit of it; still- 



1S4 PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 

however, it is not an essential part of Presbyterian- 
ism, that is, a church may exist, and act upon 
Presbyterian principles, in which they are not 
found. The want of this office does not destroy its 
Presbyterianism; whereas, a Presbyterian Church 
cannot exist without Elders. Deacons existed in 
the synagogues, and were afterwards introduced by 
the Apostles into the primitive church, as soon as cir- 
cumstances seemed to require it. We find that the 
church had existed for some time, and when " the 
number of disciples was multipled," circumstances 
seemed to call for the appointment of some, whose 
special business it should be to attend to the tempo- 
ral concerns of the church, especially to superin- 
tend her benevolent operations. — Acts 6. So in 
every church in which this part of its business 
requires much of the attention of the minister 
and elders, if the circumstances at all admit of 
it, they should have ''Deacons set over the work." 
who should be solemnly ordained by prayer and the 
laying on of hands, in the same way that the other 
officers are ordained. The importance of the office 
to the church you can easily perceive, and it shows 
in a very clear light the wisdom of the Great Head 
of the church, in arranging all things necessary to 
her peace, comfort and prosperity. Hence, we find, 
that though the office of Deacon has not been uni- 
formly found in all Presbyterian Churches, yet it 
has been generally contended for by those, w r ho 
seek entire conformity to the order of the primitive 
church. 

Con. — Was Calvin the first of the Reformers 
who sought to establish Presbyterianism according 
to the order of the primitive church? I have 
thought, that perhaps this gave rise to the idea, 



PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 185 

that he originated it. If he was the first of the 
Reformers who adopted it, the more ignorant might 
conclude that it originated with him. 

Min. — The allegation that Presbyterianism ori- 
ginated with Calvin, has not .even that foundation. 
Ulric Zuingle, the leader of the Reformation 
in Switzerland, who lived long before Calvin, 
and died before ever Calvin saw Geneva, or had 
appeared among the prominent Reformers, thus 
speaks on the subject of Ruling Elders: "The title 
of Presbyter, or Elder, as used in scripture, is not 
rightly understood by tho&e, who consider it as 
applicable only to those who preside in preaching: 
For it is evident, that the term is also sometimes 
used to designate Elders of another kind, that is, 
Senators, Leaders, or, Counselors" 

(Ecolampadius, whom D'Aubigne in his history 
mentions as one of the bright stars of the Reforma- 
ation, and who was contemporary with Luther, 
but died before Calvin came on the stage of action, 
thus speaks of Ruling Elders; "But it is evident, 
that those which are here intended, are certain Sen- 
iors or Elders, such as were in the Apostles' days, 
and who of old time were called Presbuteroi, whose 
judgment, being that of the most prudent part of 
the church, was considered as the decision of the 
whole church." The testimony of Bucer, Lasco, 
Peter Martyr, and others, is equally clear as to the 
fact, that Presbyterianism was one of the grand 
principles of the Reformation.. Luther, himself, in 
speaking of the Bohemian Church, says: "There 
hath not arisen any people since the times of the 
Apostles, whose church hath come nearer to the 
Apostolic doctrine and order, than the brethren of 
Bohemia, # * * In the ordinary discipline of the 
13 



1S6 PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 

church they use, and thereby they happily govern 
the churches, they go far beyond us, and are in this 
respect far more praiseworthy." Now, in view of 
the fact before stated, that the Bohemian Church 
was strictly Presbyterian, the sentiments of Luther 
are plain. Melancthon, Farel, Yiret and others 
might be added to the list of eminent Reformers, 
who all agree on the great principles of Presbyte- 
rianism, viz: equality of rank among ministers, and 
the government of the church by Ministers and 
Elders. 

Calvin, when he first settled at Geneva, found 
the church there in great need of discipline, and 
for attempting to. establish a system that would 
exclude gross offenders from the sealing ordinances 
of the church, he was banished from the city, and 
retired to Strasburg. While there, feeling the great 
want of some regular system of church discipline, 
he opened a correspondence with some of the prin- 
cipal men of the Bohemian Church. Comenius, in 
his history of the Bohemians, gives some extracts 
from some of his letters, in which he speaks in high 
terms of their form of church government, as being 
not only wise and wholesome, but also in accordance 
with the Apostolic order. Near four years after- 
wards he was recalled to Geneva, and made it one 
of the conditions of his accepting the pastoral 
charge of the church, that he should be permitted 
to have a bench of Elders, to conduct the discip- 
line of the church, according to the plan in use 
among the Bohemians, Thus, Presbyterianism was 
established in Geneva, and became general in the 
Reformed Churches in Switzerland, Germany, Hol- 
land. France, Hungary, Scotland, and throughout 
Europe generally, with the exception ci England. 



PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 187 

(Jon. — Why was it not received and adopted in 
England ? 

Min. — In the reformation from Popery in Eng- 
land, the Kings and Bishops mostly took the lead. 
To them, as a matter of course, the simple repub- 
licanism of the Presbyterian system would not 
be agreeable. Ecclesiastical pre-eminence had lngo 
been established, and it is not surprising that they 
should wish to retain it. Accordingly, while they 
adopted the system of doctrine taught by the Reform- 
ers generally, they retained many of the features of 
Popery in their system of church government. This, 
however, was contrary to the expressed opinion of 
many of their most learned and pious divines. Not a 
few of the brightest stars of the Church of Eng- 
land, have given their decided opinion in favor of 
Presbyterianism. The truly venerable and pious 
Dr. Owen, gives his opinion on 1 Tim. 5: 17, in the 
following unequivocal language: "This is a text of 
uncontrollable evidence, if it had any thing to con- 
flict withal, but prejudice and interest. A rational 
man, who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the 
controversy about Riding Elders, can hardly avoid 
an apprehension, that there were two sorts of Elders, 
some who labor in the word and doctrine, and some 
who do not so do. The truth is, it was interest 
and prejudice which first caused some learned men 
to strain their wits to find out evasions from the 
evidence of this testimony. Being found out, some 
others of meaner abilities have been entangled by 
them. * * * There are, then, Elders in the 
church. There are, or ought to be so, in every 
church. With these Elders the whole rule of the 
church is entrusted. All these, and only they, do 
rule in it." This, from an Independent divine of so 



18S PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 

much eminence and piety as Dr. Owen, is as strong 
human testimony in favor of Presbyterianism, as 
any one can wish. Dr. Whitely bears the same 
testimony, in language equally plain. Thorndike, 
Whitaker, and others, clearly express the same 
opinion ; and even Archbishop Cranmer, once pro- 
posed the introduction of Ruling Elders into the 
Church of England. From all this testimony it is 
plain, that though Prelacy was established in the 
national church, many of her most eminent men 
were in favor of Presbyterianism, as being in accord- 
ance with apostolic order. I have purposely avoided 
quoting the opinions of Presbyterians, because they 
might be considered partial to their own system. 
But when we find the system supported by the 
arguments of Episcopalians and Independents, par- 
tiality to Presbyterianism cannot be alleged. I 
might add testimony, equally plain, from many 
others, both Episcopalians and Independents, but I 
think I have said enough to convince you, that the 
order of the Presbyterian Church, as well as her 
doctrine, is in accordance with the Bible and com- 
mon sense, and has received the suffrages of the 
wise and good in every age. Did time permit, it 
would be a pleasant task to trace with you, the 
history of the Presbyterian Church more at large. 
Millions of her martyrs have sealed the truth of 
her doctrines with their blood; and though perse- 
cuted in every age, she still lives, and witnesses for 
the truth. But for this I must refer you to history. 
Con. — The history of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States, is a subject upon which I have 
felt considerable interest; especially, as respects 
her recent difficulties. I find two parts, or rather 
parties, each claiming to be the true Presbyterian 



PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE REFORMERS. 189 

Church in the United States, and being unac- 
quainted with the nature and causes of the diffi- 
culties, which resulted in a division of the church, 
I am at a loss to decide on the justice of the claims 
of each party. 

Min. — At some future time I will give you my 
views on this subject, and will endeavor to lay 
before you the simple facts in the case, and leave 
you to decide for yourself. 



THE 

GROUNDS AND CAUSES 

OF THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH, IN 1837 AND 1838, 



DIALOGUE I. 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



Convert. — I have frequently heard the inquiry 
made, " What is the difference between New School 
and Old School Presbyterians?" and I have heard 
it answered in different ways. Some say, there is 
no difference, or, at least, very little; and that the 
separation was without any sufficient cause; that 
the two parties should be together, and no doubt 
will be, so soon as asperity of feeling has had time 
to subside. Others say, there is such a difference, 
as to render re-union impracticable ; that the divis- 
ion was called for, under the circumstances, and, in 
fact, could not well be avoided, I have always 
thought it a very desirable object, that all christians 
should be united; but> as there are different denom- 
inations, it is nescessary that any one, in making a 
profession of religion, must choose between them; 
and, as I have a decided preference for the Presby- 
terian Church, I would be glad to know the differ- 



192 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



ence between the two branches of it, each of which 
claims to be the true Presbyterian Church. 

Minister. — I will endeavor to give you a candid 
view of the subject; and, lest I might be considered 
prejudiced, I will confine myself, mainly, to a state- 
ment of facts, from which you may draw your own 
conclusions. 

It wall be necessary for us to go back some years, 
in the history of the church, and trace difficulties 
from the beginning; and, in doing so, I may class 
them under two general heads, viz: difference in 
doctrine, and difference in measures, or practice. 

Con. — In conversation, a few days ago, w r ith a 
New School minister, I understood him to say, that 
there was, in reality* no difference in doctrine ; that 
they all held and taught, the same fundamental 
truths; and that the only difference, was a differ- 
ent method of stating the same doctrines. He 
seemed to censure Old School men, for magnifying 
things that were, in reality, of no moment. 

Min. — If that were true, it would exhibit in them 
a bigoted attachment to non-essentials; which, to 
say the least, is far from being praiseworthy. They 
knew their brethren of the Old School, esteemed 
them as truths, which were, in their view, sacredly 
important, and which they could not conscientiously 
give up. They viewed them as links in the glorious 
chain of the doctrine of grace, which, if taken 
away, the whole was broken. Now, our New 
School brethren knew, that we viewed them as 
very important matters ; yet they censure us for 
not yielding them, for the sake of peace, when they 
persisted in adhering to them, though they thought 
them of no importance* They asked us to give up 
what we thought of vital importance to the systen* 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 198 

of Gospel truth, yet they would not give up what 
they thought mere trivial matters, though they saw 
they were distracting the church, and about to 
prove the cause of its unhappy division. It would 
surely place our New School brethren in a more 
consistent light, to admit the importance of those 
points of doctrine, which caused difficulty, and 
finally division, in our church. That they were 
such, I think I shall be able to show you. That 
which has been called "neio divinity" is not the 
system of doctrine taught in our standards, with 
some points of difference merely. It is an entirely 
different system, one principal feature of which is, 
that it dishonors God and exalts man, which, you 
know, is the very reverse of the Calvinistic system 
taught in our standards. 

Con. — But, do they not receive and adopt the 
Confession of Faith? 

Min. — As a body, they receive and adopt it, in a 
certain way; that is, they adopt it, so far as they 
believe it, which is little better than mockery. In 
that way we may adopt the Turkish Koran. It 
says, "there is one God," and inculcates some moral 
duties ; and, so far, any one could adopt it. Indeed, 
I do not know of any system, that might not be 
adopted in this way. Others pretend to adopt it as 
a whole, but reserve the privilege of explaining it, 
so as to accord with their views. This mode of 
receiving the Confession, is, I believe, the most pop- 
ular with them, but it is very little better than the 
other. In this way much of the Turkish Koran 
might be explained, so as to accommodate itself to 
a Christian's faith. " There is one God, and Mo- 
hammed is his prophet." Now, give me the privi- 
lege of explanation, and I can receive this sentiment 



194 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



in fulL Mohammed was a prophet of God; that 
is, he was a false prophet, and he was a creature of 
God. But, the explanation is in direct contradic- 
tion to the plain meaning of the sentiment. So it 
is, with many explanations put upon the Confession 
of Faith. They either make it mean nothing at 
all, or something the very reverse of its obvious 
sense. I would not, however, be understood as 
saying, that all the New School body are thus 
erroneous in their sentiments. Many of their 
ministers, and, perhaps, a great proportion of their 
private members, are correct in their theological 
views, receive and love the doctrines of grace. 
But, as a body, they have the most pernicious 
errors fostered and cherished among them; and the 
holders and propagators of them, are carefully 
shielded from censure, so that they all are charge- 
able with countenancing and encouraging the 
propagation of doctrines, which, in all their ten- 
dencies, are hostile to the system of truth which 
they profess to adopt. 

I need not take time to notice all the points, in 
which the new divinity contravenes the doctrines 
of grace, as the Calvinistic system is very appro- 
priately termed. One or two of the main points 
will be sufficient to give you an idea of its danger- 
ous tendency, as well as its entire difference from 
that which has always been the received doctrine 
of our church. 

In the first place, I shall quote Dr. Taylor, of 
New Haven, who, perhaps, has done more to poison 
the church, both Congregational and Presbyterian, 
than any other man living. He places man above 
God, or rather independant of him; and asserts, 
positively, that God cannot prevent sin , or produce 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



195 



holiness, in any one, without destroying his nature, 
as a free moral agent, and, consequently, can- 
not convert a sinner. His language is as follows : 
"Free moral agents can do wrong, under every 
possible influence to prevent it. The possibility of 
a contradiction, in supposing them to be prevented 
from doing wrong, is therefore demonstrably cer- 
tain. Free moral agents can do wrong, under 
every possible preventing influence" This is taken 
from an article written by Dr. Taylor, and pub- 
lished in the Christian Spectator, in September, 
1830: page 563. 

But, again: "In our view, it is a question whether 
it is not essential to the honor of God, to suppose 
he has done all he could, to secure the universal 
holiness of his accountable creatures — and that, 
nevertheless, some, in defiance of it, would rebel." 
— Christian Spectator, 1832: page 567. Again: 
"It is a groundless assumption, that God could have 
prevented all sin, or at least the present degree of 
sin, in a moral system," — Concio ad clerum. 

Con. — These are strange sentiments, indeed ; not 
to say impious. But, is Dr. Taylor a New School 
Presbyterian ? 

Mi?i. — He is, I believe, a Congregationalist. But, 
as he is the Professor of Theology in the principal 
school in New England, from which many minis- 
ters came into the Presbyterian Church, he, per- 
haps, exerted a more extensive influence than any 
other man, in sowing the seeds of error and discord, 
in our once pure and peaceful Zion. Many of the 
New School ministers adopt his sentiments. I 
once heard a very popular preacher of that body, 
tell his hearers, two or three times in the same ser- 
mon, that "God had done all for them that he could 



196 DIFFERENCE IX DCCTRIXE, 

do" I have also seen the same sentiment inculca- 
ted in one of their most respectable religious 
periodicals; which is sufficient to show, that this 
dangerous error, so derogatory to God, is counte- 
nanced and encouraged to a considerable extent, 
and is permitted to work its ruinous consequences,, 
without rebuke or censure. A necessary conse- 
of this error is, to discourage prayer: for, if it be 
true, that God is doing every thing that he can do, 
prayer is mockery. Its dreadful consequences are 
thus strikingly shown, bv the eminent and pious 
Dr. Griffin: 

"If God could not have prevented sin in ah 
w r orlds and ages, he cannot prevent sin in any 
world or age, or in any creature at any time, except 
by preventing the particular occasion and tempta- 
tion. If God could not have prevented sin in the 
universe, he cannot prevent believers from fatally 
falling, he cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul from 
sinking at once into devils, and heaven from turn- 
ing into a hell. And were he to create new races 
to fill the vacant seats, they might turn to devils as 
fast as he created them, in spite of any thing thac 
he could do short of destroying their moral agency. 
He is liable to be defeated in all his designs, and to 
be as miserable as he is benevolent. This is infi- 
nitely the gloomiest idea that was ever thrown upon 
the world. It is gloomier than hell itself. For this 
involves only the destruction of a part, but that 
involves the wretchedness of God and his whole 
creation. And how awfully gloomy, as it respects 
the prospects of individual believers. You have no 
security that you shall stand an hour. And even if 
you get to heaven, you have no certainty of remain- 
ing there a day. All is doubt and sepulchral gloom. 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 197 

And where is the glory of God? Where the 
transcendant glory of raising to spiritual life, a 
world dead in trespasses and sin? Where the glory 
of swaying an undivided sceptre, and doing his 
whole pleasure "in the army of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth ?" — Griffin on 
Divine Efficiency, pp. 180, 181. 

Con. — Such sentiments are, as you say, truly 
derogatory to God; and, I confess, I am not a little 
surprised to learn, that they are held and taught by 
any who bear the name of evangelical christians. 

Min. — I would notice, in the next place, that the 
doctrine of imputation is denied by some leading 
New School men, who exert an extensive influ- 
ence in the body. The imputation of Adam's sin, 
is repeatedly denied by Mr. Barnes; and, also, that 
he was a representative at all, or acted for his pos- 
terity in any way. He says, in his Notes on 
Romans, chap. 5: "The simple fact is stated, that 
that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his 
posterity, * # # yet men have not been satis- 
lied with that. They have sought for a theory 
to account for it. And many suppose, they have 
found it in the doctrine, that the sin of Adam is 
imputed, or set over, by an arbitrary arrangement, 
to beings otherwise innocent; and, that they are 
held to be responsible, for a deed committed thou- 
sands of years before they were born. This is the 
theory — and, men insensibly forget, that it is mere 
theory." You will perceive, that he shows his 
enmity to the doctrine of imputation, by calling it an 
"arbitrary arrangement," thus misrepresenting it, 
and then says, it is "mere theory." Again, he says, 
in the same connection: "The expression, 'in whom 
all have sinned,' conveys no intelligible idea. * * * 



19$ DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

What idea is conveyed to men of common under- 
standing, by the expression, 'sinned in himV" 
Here, he quotes both the language of the Bible, 
and the Confession of Faith, and intimates that 
they are both nonsense. Again, he says: "The 
most common (explanation) has been, that Adam 
was the representative of the race; that he was 
a covenant head, and his sin was imputed to his 
posterity — and, that they were held liable to 
punishment for it, as they had committed it 
themselves. But, to this, there are great and 
insuperable objections.' 91 

In one of our former conversations, I endeavored 
to prove, that this doctrine of our church, is a doc- 
trine of the Bible, as well as of common sense; 
and, therefore, need not now stay to prove it. I 
only now wish to show you, that some of the 
most prominent of the New School Presbyterians 
deny it. 

Con. — Is it denied by others, besides Mr. Barnes? 

Min. — Dr. Beecher, Dr. Cox, Dr. Beeman, and 
others, all agree with Mr. Barnes. Dr. Beecher 
says, that the "prevailing doctrine in New England 
has been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin." 
This he gives as his own belief, in an article pub- 
lished in the "Spirit of the Pilgrims," in 1828. 
But, I need not multiply quotations. 

Con. — I think you stated, in one of our former 
conversations, that the doctrine of imputation, 
both as it respects Adam's sin, and Christ's right- 
eousness, was so united, that the one feature of it 
must stand or fall with the other. Do these same 
men, then, deny the doctrine, as it respects the 
righteousness of Christ, also? 

Min. — On this point, Mr. Barnes is equally plain. 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 199 

He says, in the first place, that Christ did not suffer 
the penalty of the law. — Notes on Romans, p. 89. 
And, in his whole book, he has not one single pas- 
sage expressive of justification through the merits 
of Christ alone. But, on page 28, commenting on 
the phrase, "the righteousness of God," which 
Paul tells us, is "unto all, and upon all them that 
believe," Mr. Barnes says, expressly, that it does 
not mean, "that his righteousness becomes ours.. 
This is not true ; and there is no intelligible sense 
in which it can be understood" This is strong lan- 
guage. Imputation could not be denied, in plainer 
terms. Dr. Beeman is equally explicit, in denying 
that Christ suffered the penalty of the law. He 
says : " The law can have no penal demand except 
against the offender. With a substitute, it has no 
concern. # # # There is nothing in the char- 
acter of Christ's sufferings, which can effect, or 
modify, "the penalty of the law. These sufferings 
were not legal. They constituted no part of that 
curse, which was threatened against the transgres- 
sor." Again: "As to imputation, we do deny 
that the sins of men, or of any part of our race, 
were so transferred to Christ, that they became his 
sins, or were so reckoned to him, that he sustained 
their legal responsibilities." — Sermons on the Atone- 
ment, pp. 34, 51, and 68. Again, p. 65: "The law 
of justice, (of God,) that is, distributive justice, as 
expressed in the law, has received no satisfaction at 
all" This is virtually, and in fact, a denial of the 
atonement atogether. 

Con. — But, are such errors chargeable upon the 
body of New School ministers generally ? or, are 
they only the wild errors of some individuals? 

Min.— The body are responsible for them, in 



^00 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

several ways; but this point, as well as the fact 
that these, and other kindred errors, form an entire- 
ly different system from that contained in the Con- 
fession of Faith, we will defer lor consideration at 
some future time. 



DIALOGUE IL 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



Convert. — Since our last conversation, 1 have 
been examining Mr. Barnes's Notes on Romans, 
but cannot find, in all instances, the precise language 
you quoted, though, so far as I could see, the mean- 
ing is the same. 

Minister, — I quoted the precise language of his first 
edition. In the subsequent editions, the phraseology 
is in some places changed, but it is only expressing 
his obnoxious sentiments in more cautious terms. I 
quoted purposely from his first edition, because it 
was on that he w T as arraigned before his Presbytery 
and the General Assembly. And, he distinctly 
stated, that, in his emended edition, he had not 
altered a single sentiment. It was the language 
and sentiment of his first edition, that the New 
iSchool men, in the General Assembly of 1836, 
refused to condemn. Since I saw you, however, 
I have seen the New-York Evangelist, of Nov. 9th, 
which affords decided and melancholy evidence of 
the extent to which the most pernicious errors are 
taught and encouraged by them, and the doctrines 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. '20 1 

of grace decidedly condemned. In noticing the 
V Christian Youth's Book," a work recently pub- 
lished by the pious and venerable Dr. Brownlee, 
the Editor of the Evangelist says; "We have not 
the space, nor is this the place, fully to expose or 
controvert the objectionable doctrines it contains. 
But, to specify no more than these, will be suffi- 
cient to show its theology. It teaches the existence 
of a covenant of works, and the federal headship of 
Adam — rendering, among other scriptural perver- 
sions, the phrase, 'as in Adam all die,' to mean, 'as 
by Adam all died' — and the passage, 'so death 
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' to 
mean, 'so death passed upon all men through him, in 
whom all have sinned.' Of course it teaches the 
imputation of Adam's sin, and our consequent lia^ 
bility, on that account, even if not one actual sin 
were ever superadded, to eternal death. * * * 
Of course, the sinner's justification by the imputed 
righteousness of Christ, and other kindred doctrines* 
follow." 

Con. — We are, then, to understand the editor* 
as condemning the doctrine of imputation, both as 
it respects Adam's sin, and Christ's righteousness? 

Min. — Certainly. He condemns the book, be- 
cause it teaches these doctrines. But, hear him 
farther. In immediate connection with the fore- 
going, he says: "We have no design to decry 
against the heresy and evil tendencies of doctrines 
of this nature. The New England churches, and 
those whose theological sentiments sympathize with 
those of Edwards, Hopkins, Bellamy, and Dwight, 
need no warning on this point. Our design is only 
to inform our readers of what they may be doing, if 
attracted by the excellent design, the pious spirit, 
14 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

laptedness of the work, they should 
think of reading it themselves, or of placing it in 
of the young." Now, you will be sur- 
prised to learn, that Edwards, Bellamy and Dwight, 
::ine of imputation, as plainly as it 
can be by Dr. Brownlee, or any other; and 

e editor of the New-York Evangelist wishes 
to make his readers believe that they deny it. 
Con. — But, is it a paper of any respectability? 
Min. — It is one of the principal organs of the 
School Presbyterian Church, and has, I believe,, 
a more extensive circulation, than any other peri- 
odical belonging to the body. I shall only refer 
i to the published sentiments of one more lead- 
New School man, though I might mention a 
number. 

The Rev. E. W, Gilbert, late of Wilmington. 
Delaware, now President of the College at New- 
ark, in that State, teaches that regeneration is not 
an instantaneous, but progressive work; or, rather.. 
denies that there is any such thiug, distinct from 
conviction and sanctification. "The Bible," he 
- kn oics no instantaneous regeneration.' 9 Ta 
illustrate his views, he published a diagram c<: 

f an arc of a circle, in the centre of which, 

he has placed the Holy Spirit, as the centre of 

attraction. Truth is represented by straight lines,. 

;is centre, which meet the sinner in 

id to hell, and influence him to diyeige 

little. But, that you may be able to judge more 

ily of this new and improved method 

:ation, 1 ::on, I will show you, 

the diagram, with Mr. Gilbert's explanation, as 

given by Dr. J. Wood, now of New Albany.. 

Indiana, in his interesting work on ''Old and 



DIFFERENCE IX DOCTRINE. 



203 



Theology, " a book, by the way, worthy of genera! 
circulation. 

Here is the figure, with the author's explanation; 

Heaven. 
D G 



E 

Hell. 



Truth 



-k. j:T^: c 




& 



F 



THE AUTHOR T S EXPLANATION. 

"Let the semicircle, A, B, C, represent the 
-sinner's course from sin to holiness. Let D, E 
represent the road to hell, in which the impenitent 
is found by the Holy Spirit, and influenced at the 
point A, by a new presentation of truth, to stop 
and turn gradually from his downward course, 
through the curve of conviction, towards the point 
B., where his conviction becoming perfect and irre- 
sistible, he yields, and turns from his downward 
course, through the process of salification, at G 



304 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

(or at death,) becoming perfect, he flies off, if j 
please, in a tangent, to heaven. Till he reaches 

the point B, though turning gradually from the 
more direct road to hell, he is still in the downward 
course, and should the Spirit let go of him, at any 
point, he flies off, by his own centrifugal force, in a 
moment, towards perdition. The point B repre- 
sents what these writers call 'Regeneration.'" 

"The Holy Spirit, like the sun in the centre, is 
the source of all right motion: and the power by 
which he attracts or influences the sinner, is the 
power of truth, or moral motive; by which the 
moral agent is checked at A, and moved and con- 
trolled through the whole course from A to C, It 
is understood, of course, that the whole process 
may be longer or shorter, according to circumstan- 
ces; may begin and be perfected, as with the thiei 
on the cross, in a single day, or as in the case of 
Methuselah, may occupy 900 or 1000 years. Con- 
viction, also, may be short, and sanctification long, 
or the reverse. But, conviction must, from the 
nature of the case, precede regeneration, or regen- 
eration cannot be a rational change. A physical 
change may take place without conviction: but 
physical regeneration is a thing which I cannot 
comprehend, any more than physical conviction or 
physical sanctification. The doctrine of the moral 
suasionist is, that the influence which convicts; also 
regenerates and sanctifies. That the same power 
^vhich moves the sinner from A to B, moves him 
through the point B, and along the line to C. And 
that the whole change is wrought through appropri- 
ate means, without a miracle, by the Holy Spirit.'" 

"Agreeably to these ideas of gradual progress from 
the first point to the last, he says: -There is very 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 205 

little distinction between the last degree of sin and 
the lowest degree of holiness; between the last exer- 
cise of an unconverted man and the first of a con- 
verted man: between the last feeble struggle of sel- 
fishness and the first feeble exercise of love.' * * 
4 There is a great difference between supreme sel- 
fishness and supreme love in their extremes; but, 
between the last feeble influence of selfishness and 
the first feeble exerciseof love to God, the difference 
is as imperceptible, as between the adjacent sides of 
the Equatorial line*' * # 'The point B, on the 
diagram, represents the transition line. And it may 
be asked, is it not an important one? I answer, yes. 
Important on many accounts, but not because of any 
special influence used then* but like the Equator, as 
a measure of relative progress, and as the era of a 
great change in all our moral relations and circum- 
stances. Like the Equatorial line, however, it is in 
itself of no consequence at ally 

Apart from the error and nonsense of this 
exhibition of Mr, Gilbert, it is little short of down- 
right profanity, and affords painful and melancholy 
evidence of the lengths to which men will go, who 
.step aside from the plain dictates of the Bible, and 
have recourse to " philosophy, falsely so called. " 

Con.— What evidence have we, that such views pre- 
vail among New School Presbyterians, to any extent. 

Min. — That there is a general sympathy among 
them for such doctrines, is plain, from the standing 
of those who propagate them. Mr. Gilbert is per- 
manent Clerk of their General Assembly, and 
President of a College, which the Synod of Penn- 
sylvania, (N. S.,) at its last meeting, recommended, 
as worthy of the patronage and confidence of their 
.churches. If any of the religious periodicals belong- 



206 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



ing to the Old School Presbyterians, would publish 
such views as I have quoted from the New-York 
Evangelist, how long do you think it would be 
tolerated? The paper could not exist one year. It 
is plain, therefore, that the fundamental truth of 
the representative character of both Christ and 
Adam, is generally rejected. Dr. Beeman, who 
denies that Christ gave any legal satisfaction to the 
law of God, and thus virtually denies the atone- 
ment, was the first Moderator of the New School 
Assembly, and has always been a man of standing 
and influence among them. 

But, the most decisive evidence of the wide 
extent to which error prevails among them, is fur- 
nished in the case of Mr. Barnes. He was tried 
before his Presbytery, for teaching doctrines con- 
trary to the Confession of Faith; and, strange as 
it may appear, the Presbytery, who almost entirely 
sympathized with his doctrinal views, refused to 
find him guilty. There was an appeal taken to the 
Synod, which body condemned him. He appealed 
to the General Assembly, and his case came up in 
1836, when the New School men had the majority, 
and he was cleared of any thing worthy of cen- 
sure. It was very evident, at that meeting of the 
Assembly, that all the New School men sympathized 
with Mr. Barnes' views of doctrine. Almost all 
the speakers in his favor, so testified. One man 
said, " If you condemn Mr. Barnes, you condemn 
one-half of the Presbyterian Church." Another 
said, " I agree with Mr. Barnes, both in sentiment 
and language." A third said, that the only point 
in which Mr. Barnes was blameable, was that he 
was "too orthodox;" that is, he adhered too closely 
to the Confession of Faith. Dr. Skinner said: " This 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 



207 



•^s not a trial of Mr. Barnes as an individual. It is 
virtually the trial of a thousand ministers of the 
gospel, and of a large number of the members of 
this body. #■>•#*'./ am virtually identified with 
Mr. Barnes, and so are, perhaps, a majwity of this 
House." [I quote from his speech, as published in 
the New-York Observer.'] Dr. Peters said in sub- 
stance, that the question should not be, whether 
Mr. Barnes should be tolerated in the Presbyte- 
rian Church ; but, whether the prosecutor in the 
case, (Dr. Junkin,) who had accused Mr. Barnes of 
heresy, should be tolerated. I might quote many 
other facts and sentiments* but this is sufficient, to 
show the wide extent to which the most dangerous 
errors were held and sustained in our church. And, 
from this view, you will not be surprised that the 
friends of truth were alarmed, and felt there was 
need of some decisive measures to purify the 
church. 

Con. — But^ was it a fair construction to put upon 
the action of those who refused to condemn Mr. 
Barnes, that they held his errors? 

Min. — No farther than they skd -expressed them- 
selves. Even among Old School men, different 
opinions obtained of what should be done in the 
case. Some wished to have him deposed from the 
ministry entirely,, so far as it respected our church. 
Others thought he should be suspended for a time; 
and, others again, that he should be censured for 
his errors, and admonished to review his book, and 
purge it of its erroneous sentiments. The Old 
School part of the church, would have been satis- 
fied with either course. But, the Assembly refused 
So do either. And, after they had restored him to 
■:be full exercise of all the functions of the ministry 



2Q6 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

in our church, a resolution was offered by Dr. Mil- 
ler, declaring, that as Mr. Barnes' book contained 
" opinions materially at variance with the Confes- 
sion of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, the 
Assembly would solemnly admonish him to review 
and modify his work," &c; which resolution the 
Assembly refused to adopt, by a majority of thir- 
teen, every New School man voting against it, 
thus virtually giving their sanction to sentiments, 
which not only directly contravened the Confession 
of Faith, but held it up to ridicule; and, saying as 
plainly as they could say it, that it was no error 
for a man to say, and publish, in a book designed 
for youth, that there was " no conceivable sense" in 
w T hich the righteousness of Christ can become ours, 
It is vain, therefore, for New School men to 
plead that they are not responsible for these, and 
other kindred errors. They are chargeable upon 
the whole body, so long as there is no effort to- 
check them. Mr. Barnes still continues to publish 
to the w r orld his dangerous errors, and his works 
are recommended by all the Now School publica- 
tions. Mr. Gilbert can teach that there is no such 
thing as regeneration y distinct from conviction and 
sanctification, and, that "in itself it is of no import- 
ance at all;" and yet he is oae of the permanent 
officers of their General Assembly, and President of 
a College recommended to the confidence of all, by 
a New School Synod. Dr. Beeman, in undermining 
the atonement, jneets with not one word of oppo- 
sition or reproof. And, Dr. Beech er, who teaches 
that man in his natural state possesses full and per- 
fect ability to keep all the commandments of God,, 
with other kindred doctrines, is their teacher of 
theology for all the West; and strenuous efforts are* 



DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 209 

made by ail to sustain him, and the Institution over 
which he presides. It is not surprising, then, that 
these, with other kindred doctrines, were publicly 
taught, and authoritatively sustained, they should 
cause great difficulty in the church. The friends 
of truth became fearful that there was a deep 
laid scheme to infuse the leaven of semi-Pelagian- 
ism through our whole church. Our New School 
brethren were entreated to refrain from their inno- 
vations, but they treated all our fears and com- 
plaints as the result of bigotry and prejudice. And, 
while thus attempting to overturn our system of 
doctrines, which we love dearer than our life, they 
were very loud in their cries of "peace, peace" 
And, when they saw the difficulty in which the 
whole church was involved by their course, they 
endeavored to cast all the odium of strife and con- 
tention upon us, simply because we would not 
submit quietly to have the system of gospel truth 
overturned, which we had vowed to support. 

Con. — I see some of the errors you mention, are 
very dangerous, especially, a denial of the doctrine 
of imputation; but, how is it, that these doctrines 
you mention, overturn, as you say, the whole 
system of the doctrines of grace? 

Min. — It is plain, for instance, if man has perfect 
ability to obey all the commandments of God, 
he needs nothing more; and the idea of asking 
God for a new heart, is preposterous: for man 
either does not need it, or has power to make it 
himself. The idea of regeneration by grace, is 
altogether irreconcilable with such a sentiment. 
Consequently, the new doctrine will produce differ- 
ent practice, so far as it is believed, and will lead 
sinners away from God to themselves. If I believed 



210 DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE. 

the doctrine of perfect ability, I would, instead of 
instructing my hearers to pray for regeneration, or 
sanctifying grace, exhort them just to do what they 
could in themselves, and tell them no more would 
be required. Prayer for the Spirit of God, to con- 
vert and sanctify, would be presumption; but, more 
especially, if to the doctrine of man's perfect abil- 
ity to convert himself, w r e add that of the inability 
of God, which so many teach. Man is, then, made 
independent, and the mouth of prayer is closed. 
You can easily see, how entirely these sentiments 
differ from that system, which teaches the sinner 
that he is entirely dependent on the grace of God: 
that, in himself, he is a ruined, depraved, graceless, 
and helpless rebel; that his only hope is in free, 
sovereign, unmerited grace; and, that for this, he 
must look in humble prayer, to an offended God. 

But, again: If there be "no conceivable sense" in 
which the righteousness of Christ can become ours, 
we must be saved in some other way than through 
that righteousness. Here, too, the sinner is thrown 
back upon himself. His own works and exercises, 
must be the ground of his dependence, and where, 
then, is salvation by grace? It is a mere empty 
sound. All our gratitude to God, and joy in 
dependence upon the glorious righteousness of 
Christ, are mere fanatical delusions. Faith, then, 
is not "receiving and resting upon Christ alone for 
salvation," as our Catechism defines it. It is a belief 
that we shall be saved in some other way. Thus, 
you perceive, that the New Divinity, as it is termed, 
is not the Calvinistic system, with some points of 
difference merely. It is, in fact, " another gospel." 
And, just so far as it is established, the doctrines of 
grace, as taught in our excellent standards, are 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 211 

overthrown. I have mentioned but a few points in 
which the New Divinity contravenes the Confession 
of Faith, and, as we believe, the Bible; but, what 1 
have said will be sufficient to show you, that we 
were not scared at trifles, in supposing that the fun- 
damental principles of our system were assailed. 

Con. — I am not surprised that such things should 
occasion difficulty; but, you intimated, that there 
were other grounds of difficulty besides a differ- 
ence in doctrine, and, I would be glad to have a 
view of the whole. 

Min. — The other points of difference, we will 
examine at some future time, as our conversation 
has been sufficiently protracted, for the present. 



DIALOGUE III. 

DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 

Convert. — In one of our former conversations^ 
you mentioned that the difficulties which agitated 
the Presbyterian Church previous to 1837, related to 
measures as well as doctrine. Did you mean what 
are commonly termed "New Measures;" or the 
manner in which many endeavored to produce and 
promote what were called revivals of religion, by 
the use of "revival preachers, anxious seats, public 
confession?" &c. 

Minister. — Those measures did not belong exclu- 
sively to the New School part of the church. Many 
united in them who were Old School in every thing 



212 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 



else, and on the other hand, some New School men 
opposed them. And though they were more gen- 
erally favored by those who either held, or connived 
at errors in doctrine; and though in the use of them, 
many ran into wild extravagances; yet, they did 
not constitute the main, or most prominent point of 
difficulty. That which caused the greatest difficul- 
ty, was a difference of opinion, and practice, as to 
the manner in which the church should carry on 
her benevolent operations. You are aware that our 
church has now her several departments in her 
work of benevolence, under the management and 
supervision of men of her own appointing, who 
are responsible to her for the manner in which 
her work is conducted. Our Boards of Foreign 
Missions, Domestic Missions, ^Education, &c, are 
organs of the church for carrying forward the great 
work of evangelizing the world. They are under 
her immediate control and supervision, and are 
bound to report every year to the General Assem- 
bly what they have done, the manner in which 
they have discharged their important trusts, and 
how they have disbursed the benevolent contribu- 
tions of the church, entrusted to their care. This 
mode of operation was violently opposed by the 
New School part of the church, and so long as 
they remained in our connection, they labored 
strenuously to prevent the church from entering 
upon the great work of evangelizing the world in 
her distinctive capacity; but wished her to unite 
with other evangelical denominations, under Boards 
of benevolence that had no distinctive character;, 
and were responsible to no church, or organization* 
but themselves, and were hence called " voluntary 
associations," or societies. 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 113 

Con. — But, would it not be better for all evan- 
gelical denominations to unite in the great work of 
benevolence? The command of the Savior is to 
the whole church militant, to carry the gospel to 
all the world, and if they could unite their efforts, 
it would add greatly to the strength of the cause, 
and recommend it in the eyes of the world. 

Min. — So far as christians are united in senti- 
ment, they can unite in effort. There are depart- 
ments in the great work of benevolence which 
occupy common ground, in which Presbyterians 
are not only willing, but anxious to unite with all 
other denominations. Such is the work of giving; 
the Bible to the world, without any human addi- 
tions, in either note or comment. The American 
Bible Society is a voluntary association, organized 
for this special purpose, and Presbyterians have 
always been among its warmest friends, and most 
liberal and active supporters. To a certain extent 
also, the American Tract Society occupies common 
ground, upon which all evangelical christians can 
unite, and in the great and good work which it has 
done, and is still doing, Presbyterians have been 
among its foremost and most active friends. And 
though it cannot do all that we wish to be done in 
the circulation of evangelical truth, by means of 
tracts and books, as it cannot disseminate any of 
our distinctive doctrines; yet, had other denomina- 
tions remained contented with it, as an organ 
through which to operate in this department of 
oenevolence, Presbyterians would have remained 
satisfied without any distinctive organization. But, 
as ^Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, &c, organ- 
ized their own Tract Societies, for the dissemination 
of their own peculiar views, by some of which 



k Jl4 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 

Presbyterianism was assailed, and grossly misrep- 
resented, we were compelled to have an organiza- 
tion of our own, in self-defence. Bat, though we 
have our Board of Publication, it is not intended 
that it should take the place of the American Tract 
Society, as an organ through which we should ope- 
rate exclusively in disseminating evangelical truth, 
by means of the press. It is only intended to fill a 
place in this department of benevolence, which the 
other cannot, and which w r e, as Presbyterians, felt 
bound to occupy. As it respects other departments 
of benevolence, however, the case is different. No 
voluntary association, that is general in its charac- 
ter, can do the work which the church is bound to 
do. For instance, the training of our young men 
for the gospel ministry is a work in which we can- 
not unite with other denominations, without giving 
up some of its most important parts. Our church 
is in great need of ministers, and she has entered 
upon the work of aiding forward her poor and 
pious young men, and of training them for their 
important work. It is not only consistent with 
charity for all others who differ from us, to expend 
all our efforts in educating and training Presbyte- 
rian ministers, but it is our duty to do all we can to 
have them such, because we believe, that as Presby- 
terians, they can be instrumental in accomplishing 
a greater amount of good. It is our duty to have 
them thoroughly instructed in all the doctrines 
of grace, in order that they may be able not only 
to preach them fully, but also to defend them it 
assailed. Without this, we cannot lift a standard 
against the flood of error which threatens to deluge 
the church, and the world. It is preposterous to 
ask us to unite with other denominations in this 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 21& 

work, or to throw our contributions into a voluntary 
association, whose very constitution forbids them to 
give any young man a Presbyterian education. 

The same is true respecting Domestic Missions. 
We have hundreds of feeble churches, who are 
unable to support a pastor, and without the stated 
means of grace they cannot be expected to grow 9 . 
but must decline and become extinct. The whole 
church. has entered upon the work of assisting 
those feeble churches to sustain a pastor until they 
become able to do it themselves. We throw our 
contributions into a general fund, the judicious 
disbursement of which, and the oversight of the 
whole work, are entrusted to our Board of Domes- 
tic Missions. Now. it seems to me, that the utmost 
stretch of charity cannot ask us to unite with other 
denominations in this work, which is of vital import- 
ance to the growth, and even to the existence of 
our church. When a man is sent to build up our 
waste places, w£ wish him to be a Presbyterian, 
and one who will administer Presbyterianism in all 
its parts. I have, in former conversations, endeav- 
ored to show you, that Presbyterianism, as a spirit- 
ual republicanism, is> of all other systems of church 
government, the most congenial to the principles of 
our civil government. Consequently we may hope,. 
that in proportion as Presbyterianism is widely 
inculcated, and established throughout our country,, 
our Republican institutions will be permanent. 
Hence, we are bound, not only as Presbyterians, 
but as Patriots, to do all we can for the wide dis- 
semination of our system of truth and order. And 
those who attempted to hinder us in this good 
work, we viewed as oppsing our best interests, both 
as Presbyterians and Republicans. 



^16 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 

Co?i. — It not only seems reasonable, that the 
ehurch should be actively and zealously engaged in 
such a work, but also, that she could not neglect it 
without a gross dereliction of duty. But, did the 
New School part of the church oppose it? 

Min. — There was, perhaps, no one of our church 
organizations that met with more bitter opposition 
from them, than our Board of Domestic Missions. 
Almost from its first organization they set them- 
selves against it, and so long as they continued in 
our connection, labored strenuously to break it 
down. They wished us to carry on our Domes- 
tic Missionary work through the American Home 
Missionary Society, a voluntary and irresponsible 
institution, which has no distinctive character, and 
whose influence and operations, so far as they 
extended in our church, were, in the main, rather 
detrimental to the interests of true Presbyterian- 
ism. They wished us also, to carry on the work of 
training our young men for the ministry, through 
the American Education Society, a kindred institu- 
tion, and based upon the same general principles. 
With this institution to furnish the men, and the 
Home Missionary Society to send them as mission- 
aries to our vacant churches, they succeeded in 
diffusing the leaven of error in doctrine, and lax- 
ness in order, through a considerable portion of our 
church, and thus made the New School defection 
much more extensive than it would otherwise have 
oeen. Men were sent out to occupy vacant Pres- 
byterian churches, who had not only never adopted 
the Confession of Faith, but had never seen it, and 
did not know even how to moderate a church Ses- 
sion. Under the influence of such men, it is not 
surprising that the true principles of Presbyterian- 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 217 

. sni were lost sight of, our catechism neglected, and 
our excellent Standards brought into disrepute. 
And, had they succeeded in their efforts to break 
down our Boards of Education, and Missions, and 
consequently, to compel the church to operate 
through their irresponsible institutions, the Presby- 
terian Church would also, soon have been broken 
down, and truth would then indeed have "fallen in 
the streets." I would not, however, be understood 
as saying, that such was the kind of men educated 
and sent out by these voluntary societies, in all 
instances. A few were good Presbyterians, and 
more became such, when they were brought to 
study our system of doctrine and order. But, 
Agnorance of our doctrines, or hostility to them, 
was too generally characteristic of the men thus 
nshered into the Presbyterian Church. 

Con, — What were the means and efforts used by 
the New School men to break down the Boards of 
the church? 

Min. — Their opposition to the Board of Educa- 
tion was not so open and direct, as against the 
Board of Missions. They, however, uniformly set 
themselves against it; and, so far as their influence 
•extended, prevented churches from contributing to 
its funds, and young men from coming under its 
-care. Our Board of Missions was in successful 
operation before the Home Missionary Society was 
organized, which was in May, 1826. That it was 
.organized in opposition to our Board, did not at 
first appear, and some of our prominent Old School 
men expressed themselves in favor of it, thinking 
that it would do good, without conflicting with our 
Board. It soon became evident, however, that they 
wished to have the whole field to themselves. In 
15 



218 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES 



152S, an overture was presented to the General 
Assembly, for some important modifications in our 
Board, to give it more efficiency, and to enable it 
to prosecute its work with more vigor. This was 
violently opposed by the J\ T ew School men; and r 
strange as it may appear,, a committee was sent by 
the Home Missionary Society itself, who were 
admitted to speak on the floor of the General As- 
sembly, in opposition to the proposed modifications 
of our Board, though they were not members of 
the Assembly. Through their influence the over- 
ture was rejected; and it is said, that when the vote 
was announced, by which it was lost, Dr. Beecher^ 
who was present, said exultingly, that it was "the 
last kick of Presbyterianism" From this, and 
many other subsequent developements, it became 
very evident, that this Society, with its kindred insti- 
tutions,, were used as powerful engines, to change 
the character of our whole church; and as they 
still continued their hostility to the Boards of the 
church, it is not surprising that great difficulty was 
the result. Their opposition,, however, aroused the 
friends of our Board, and afterwards the General 
Assembly modified it in the manner desired: and 
the new Board, thus modified, went into vigorous* 
action. One of their first acts, was to send a cour- 
teous letter to Dr. Peters, Secretary of the Home 
Missionary Society, expressive of their wish for 
peace and harmony between the tv\o Boards, and 
their hope, that each could pursue their work with- 
out interference with the other. Dr. Peters replied 
in a manner that, to say the least, was not very 
courteous or modest, assuming that the two Boardsr 
could not exist without conflict, and that the proper 
course was for our Board to become auxiliary to* 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 219 

theirs! This Avill no doubt surprise you, but it 
is veritable history. Efforts to have our Board 
merged in theirs were still continued. The subject 
was brought before the Assembly in 1829 or 1830, 
but they did not succeed. Finally it was agreed 
upon, that as the Domestic Missionary work lay 
principally in the West, the matter should be left 
to the western Presbyteries, and each party pledged 
themselves to abide the decision of a convention, 
called to meet in Cincinnati. This body met in 
November, 1831, and decided, by a vote of 76 to 
15, to adhere to the General Assembly's Board, 
preferring to have their missionary work performed 
through it. But, the Home Missionary Society 
paid no attention to this decision, and went on as 
before, sending its agents and missionaries, into the 
same region from which they had been excluded 
by the vote of the convention. They had this 
advantage, that while they themselves were irre- 
sponsible, and perfectly independent of the General 
Assembly, and every other church court, they 
always had a voice in the Assembly, to which our 
Board was responsible. And, after managing their 
business in their own way, they came into the As- 
sembly, and endeavored to throw obstructions in 
the way of our Board. Finally, in the ever mem- 
orable Assembly of 1836, they made a bold stroke 
to put it down, by attempting to elect members of 
the Board who were hostile to it, and friends of 
the Home Missionary Society. Strange as this may 
appear to you, it was actually done. Men were 
actually nominated to fill vacancies in the Board 
of Missions, who were its deadliest enemies; and, 
as they had a majority in the Assembly of that 
year, they expected to succeed in electing them. 



•220 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 



But, a few of their own men, it was supposed, 
refused to go with them, in a measure so palpably 
unjust, and friends of the Board were elected by a 
small majority. Such measures, coming in imme- 
diate connection with the case of Mr. Barnes, 
excited alarm for the welfare and purity of the 
church; and it is not surprising that they should. 

Con. — Such things were calculated to create 
difficulty. But, while it seems to me reasonable 
and proper, that the church should have been left 
to carry on her own Domestic Mission w r ork, in her 
distinctive capacity, untrammelled by any foreign 
influence, I do not see the same reason for acting 
alone in the work of Foreign Missions. Might 
she not consistently unite w r ith other denominations, 
in the work of sending the gospel to the heathen 1 

Mi?i. — There is no department of benevolence 
over w r hich the church should exercise so strict and 
w r atchful an oversight, as that of Foreign Missions. 
The men whom we send, should be not only thor- 
oughly educated, but should be men of the most 
ardent and devoted piety. They should also be 
fully instructed in all the doctrines of grace. What 
success could w r e expect from the preaching and 
instruction of a missionary, who would tell the 
poor, ignorant, and besotted heathen, that they 
had in themselves all the ability necessary to fulfil 
the requirements of God? or, that they must not 
expect salvation through the imputed righteousness 
of Christ? The heathen might justly reply, that 
such a system of religion was only a little refine- 
ment of their own. Yet, such was the kind of 
instruction that we, as Presbyterians, too often 
sent to the heathen, while we carried on our 
missionary work through the American Board of 



DIFFERENCE IV MEASURES. 221 

Commissioners for Foreign Missions. This is an 
institution similar in character to the American 
Education, and Home Misssionary Societies. It is 
in no way responsible to us as a church, nor can 
we exercise any control over it, or direct the Board 
in any way, as to the kind of men they should send 
out. It is an institution that has sent out many 
excellent men, who have been the means of accom- 
plishing a vast amount of good in heathen lands. 
And of the three voluntary Boards of benevolence, 
through which our New School brethren wished 
us to act exclusively, this was the least exception- 
able. But still, as we knew they were not partic- 
ular as to the doctrinal views of their missionaries, 
and as we felt it to be a matter of vast importance, 
that those whom we sent to preach the gospel to 
the heathen, should be men in whom the whole 
church could have confidence, as preachers of the 
same blessed doctrines of the cross, in which we 
were united, we desired to take the oversight of 
our own missionary work. But, above all, we felt 
that the command of our blessed Master to "preach 
the gospel to every creature," was binding upon us, 
as a church. As a church, Ave were not engaged 
in it, and feeling the responsibility under which we 
acted, we were anxious that the banner of the 
cross should be unfurled in heathen lands by the 
Presbyterian Church, as such, believing that in this 
way we Pcould accomplish a greater amount of 
good. The first step toward a distinct organiza- 
tion, was in the formation of the Western Foreign 
Missionary Society, by the Synod of Pittsburgh, 
which met with the approval and co-operation of the 
Old School part of the church generally. But, as it 
was a synodical organization, it was felt that wl 



222 DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 

needed one that would more properly belong to the 
whole church. In the General Assembly of 1S35, 
the subject was taken up, and a proposition made 
to the Synod of Pittsburgh, for the transfer of the 
Western Foreign Missionary Society to the Gen- 
eral Assembly, in order that it might become the 
General Assembly's Board of Foreign Missions. 
The Synod, at its next meeting, agreed to the 
transfer, and a contract was entered into, with the 
Assembly's committee, accordingly. But, the As- 
sembly of 1S36, to cap the climax of its high- 
nanded proceedings, refused to ratify the contract, 
and denied the church the privilege of serving her 
Master in the manner in which she felt bound, in 
conscience, to do. 

Con. — It was certainly cause of regret, that the 
New School men, when they had the privilege of 
operating through a Board of their own choice, had 
not charity enough to allow the same to their Old 
School brethren, if they asked no more. And I 
suppose the establishment of a Board of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, was not intended to render it oblig- 
atory on any part of the church to operate through 
it, unless they so desired. 

Min. — It was only intended to be the organ of 
that part of the church which preferred it. Those 
who preferred the American Board, were left free 
to act as they pleased. And w r hen they denied us 
the same privilege, we felt deeply grieved. Some 
were indignant at such intolerance, manifested in 
those who were the loudest in their cries of charity 
and liberality ; but the most part were bowed in 
sorrow, and bitterness of spirit. There were other 
things, which increased the difficulty; but we felt 
particularly grieved with the action of the Assembly 



DIFFERENCE IN MEASURES. 22o 

n the case of Mr. Barnes, and of our Board of 
Foreign Missions. Had the Assembly condemned 
the doctrines of Mr. Barnes' Book, and ratified the 
contract with the Synod of Pittsburgh, for the 
transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Soci- 
ety to the General Assembly, we would have been 
satisfied, and the action of the Assembly of 1837, 
for the purification of the church, would not have 
been thought necessary. But, in view of the 
action of the Assembly of 1836, it is not surpris- 
ing, that every lover of truth, and order, in the 
church, was alarmed, and felt that something 
decisive must be done. 

I have now given you a hasty view of some of 
the most prominent sources of difficulty, which led 
to a separation between the two parties in our 
church. I have purposely confined myself to facts, 
and from these facts you must draw your own 
conclusions. 

I freely admit, that the Old School men were, 
in some things, to blame. Many things were 
said, and written, on both sides, that were cal- 
culated to increase the difficulty. When men 
become excited, it is difficult to preserve, in all 
things, a christian forbearance. 

The occurrences of 1837, will next claim our 
notice, which we will consider at some future time. 



224 doings of 1S37. 

DIALOGUE IV, 

DOINGS OF 1837. 

Minister. — We are now to take a view of the 
occurrences that followed the action of the General 
Assembly of 1836, and the subsequent action of 
that of 1837, of which you have no doubt heard 
much said, as it has been a very fruitful theme of 
declamation for those who wished to cast odium 
upon us, and upon all measures which were taken 
for the purification of the church. 

Convert. — I suppose you allude to what are called 
the "excinding acts" of the Assembly of 1837. I 
have heard them very bitterly denounced, as tyran- 
nical and uncalled for, and from what I have learned* 
I was led to believe that they were, at least, very 
severe measures. 

Min. — It is perhaps not saying too much, to 
say that they were severe. Many things are 
severe, which are not only wise and judicious, but 
necessary. The amputation of a diseased limb, is 
a severe measure, but may be necessary and proper, 
It is a very easy matter for any one to find fault, 
and say that such a measure was unnecessary, that 
life might have been preserved without it, that 
there were other ways of curing the diseased mem- 
ber, &c, and raise a cry of cruelty, &c, against 
the operation ; but to prescribe how the cure might 
have been effected, is not so easy. The cry of in- 
tolerance, tyranny, persecution worse than popish. 
&e. s I know has been raised against the General 



DOINGS OF 



1837. 225 



Assembly. But, such things, to say the least, speak 
not well for those who have originated and united 
in such denunciation. Even the name by which 
they designate the acts of the Assembly, is a mis- 
representation. They were not "excinding acts,'* 
either in fact, or intention. They simply declared 
a fact, which the General Assembly believed to be 
true, and which they felt called upon to declare at 
the time. 

Con. — But, were not hundreds of ministers, and 
thousands of church members, thrown out of the 
church, and condemned without a trial? 

Min. — There was not a single minister, or church 
member condemned, or thrown out of the church, 
in the sense in which that expression is designed to 
be understood. It was judged by the Assembly, 
that some Synods had been connected with us m 
name, which were not so constitutionally, either in 
form, or in fact, and they passed an act declarative 
of the simple fact, that they were not legally in our 
connection, — and at the same time requiring them 
to take the necessary steps to become legally 
attached to us, if they desired our connection. 
But, the organization of the Synods and Presby- 
teries wm not disturbed, nor the standing of a 
single minister, or church member. 

Con. — How did they become connected with the 
church in name, and not in fact? 

Min. — They became connected with us through 
the operation of "Plans of Union," as they were 
termed, between the General Assembly and Con- 
gregational bodies. In the early settlement of 
Western New- York, and the Western Reserve in 
Ohio, Presbyterians and Congregationalists having 
settled promiscuously in the same neighborhoods, 



226 doings of 1S37, 

it was thought best to have some plan upon 
which they could unite in the support of pastors, 
Accordingly, in 1801, a plan was devised by the 
General Assembly, and proposed to the General 
Association of Connecticut, which body approved 
of it, and the churches in the new settlements con- 
sequently acted upon it. By this plan, a Congrega- 
tional minister might be a pastor of a Presbyterian 
church, and a Presbyterian minister pastor of a 
Congregational church, and churches of a mixed 
character might be ruled by a Committee, instead 
of a Session, You perceive that this was giving 
up several important points of Presbyterianism. 
You will see the plan given at length on page 297 
of the Assembly's Digest, if you wish to examine 
it for yourself. It allows of the organization oi' 
churches without elders, which is contrary to our 
Constitution. It also allowed a Congregational 
minister to moderate a Presbyterian church Ses- 
sion, and administer Presbyterian discipline, which 
he himself did not acknowledge, or believe to be 
right. It admitted Congregationalists to sit as 
members in Presbytery, and have an equal voice 
with Presbyterians, though they had never been 
ordained to any office in the church, had never 
adopted our Confession of Faith, and in fact did 
not believe it. And, though the plan did not allow 
them to sit in any court higher than the Presby- 
tery, yet, a strange license was taken from that 
permission, and they were found both in the Synod 
and General Assembly, administering and making 
iaws for Presbyterians, which they themselves did 
not acknowledge. But, I need not particularize 
farther. The plan violated our Constitution in 
almost every one of its provisions, and was so con- 



doings of 1837. 227 

strued as to allow of other violations* which it did 
not contemplate. As to the question whether the 
General Assembly had the power of making such 
regulations, I need not speak. If it had the power 
to make them, it had also the power to repeal them ; 
and if it had not the power to make them, they 
were, of course, null from the beginning. 

Vast numbers of churches became connected 
with us through the operation of this plan, who 
were not Presbyterian. They were called Pres- 
byterians, it is true, and were enrolled as in our 
connection, but were Congregationalists in church 
government, and every thing else. And though 
they appeared in our church courts, and had a voice 
in governing us, they themselves did not acknowl- 
edge our authority in any thing, and did not feel 
bound by a single law of the Presbyterian Church. 

Con, — It seems very strange that such things 
would be permitted on the one hand, or practised 
on the other. They were certainly calculated to 
lead to difficulty. 

Min. — Such things could never have obtained a 
place except in the most liberal of all churches. It 
is not wonderful, that when difficulty arose, as the 
consequence of such things, that the church endeav- 
ored to remedy the evil by abrogating the "Plan of 
Union." It is only surprising that it was not done 
long before. 

Con, — But, was it not a kind of contract between 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists, that required 
the consent of both parties, before it could be justly 
annulled? 

Min. — It could not be, under the circumstances, 
because there was no party with whom the General 
Assembly could make a contract in the case. The 






Ml DOINGS OF 1837. 

General Association of Connecticut, to whom the 
plan was proposed for their approval, could not 
make a contract for the churches in New York and 
Ohio, because they had no authority over these 
churches whatever. They have no authority even 
over the churches of Connecticut, for it is one 
feature of Congregationalism, that everv church is 
independent, and acknowledges no higher author- 
ity than its own. All the Association could do in 
the case, w r as simply to express their opinion, that, 
under the circumstances, the plan was a good 
one. They could have nothing to do with it 
authoritatively. It was, then, simply a plan of 
the Assembly, respecting those new churches, 
which, though entered into w r ith the best inten- 
tions, yet, when it w r as found to operate injuriously 
on the peace and purity of the church, the Assem- 
bly felt it to be their duty to annul it in self-defence. 

Con. — In what way particularly, did it operate 
injuriously? 

Min. — It was found that those churches which 
had come into our connection through this plan, 
almost universally, favored the errors in doctrine 
and order, which had crept into the church, and 
against w^hich the friends of truth and order, felt 
called upon to contend. The men who came from 
those churches to the General Assembly, during 
the time of our difficulties, almost to a man voted 
against us, thus endeavoring to govern Presbvte- 
rians in their own way, through the General As- 
sembly, the authority of which they themselves 
did not acknowledge. They wished to govern us, 
w^hile they were independent of any authority. 
It seemed indeed, in some instances, that those 
Congregational churches, that acknowledged no 



doings of 1837. 229 

authority, were more largely represented in the 
General Assembly than Presbyterian churches, and 
consequently, had more power in the management 
of our concerns. The Synod of the Western Re- 
serve, for instance, in which, out of one hundred 
and fifty churches, only twenty-Jive or thirty are 
Presbyterian, sent, in 1837, twenty men to the 
General Assembly. If we deduct one-fifth of this 
number for the Presbyterian churches, we have left, 
sixteen men to represent one hundred and twenty 
Congregational churches, while the Synod of Ohio, 
which had near one hundred and fifty churches, 
all Presbyterian, only sent twelve; and the Synod of 
Pittsburgh, w^hich had near two hundred and fifty 
churches, all Presbyterian, sent only eighteen. 
Thus, we found, that questions involving, deeply, 
;he welfare of the church, were decided by those 
who were not under her authority, and whose de- 
cisions, we thought, were uniformly in opposition 
to her best interests. It is not then surprising, that 
in the important crisis into which the church was 
brought, the General Assembly of 1837, decided 
that this state of things should not continue. 

Con. — But how could churches be represented in 
the General Assembly, when the delegates to that 
oody are sent by the Presbyteries! 

Mini — The churches all had their representatives 
in Presbytery, to choose the men who should repre- 
sent them. The delegates to the General Assembly 
represent the churches in the Presbytery, as well 
as the ministers. 

Con. — Were the other three Synods, that the 
Assembly decided were not constitutionally con- 
nected with the church, as largely Congrega- 
tional as that of the Western Reserve? And did 



% J30 DOINGS OF 1S37. 

they come in under the operation of the same plan? 

Mia. — Most of them. I believe, came in under the 
operation of the same plan, though some did not. 
The Synod of Geneva, came in under another plan, 
adopted in 1S0S. This, however, was rather a 
provision of the Assembly, for a certain case. And 
from the action in the case, you can judge of the 
Presbyterianism of the Synod of Geneva, which. 
I believe, is allowed to be a fair specimen of the 
others. 

There was a body of Congregationalists in New 
York, called the "Northern Associate Presbytery," 
and another called the "Middle Association of the 
Western District," in which proposals were made 
for uniting with the Presbyterian Church. But, not 
liking the "Plan of Union" of 1S01, they proposed 
one of their own, which should leave them in pos- 
session of their own Congregational government as 
it was. The Synod of Albany, with whom they 
were to unite, sent the proposal to the General 
Assembly of 1S9S. The Assembly agreed to the 
plan, but did not record it on their minutes, and it is 
to be found only on the minutes of the Synod of 
Albany. I have, however, seen the minutes of the 
Synod of Albany quoted by a very distinguished 
jurist of Pennsylvania, in giving his opinion in this 
case. The plan, as quoted by him, provided that 
these bodies should "become a constituent branch 
of our body, by assuming the characteristic and 
scriptural name of Presbytery, and adopting our 
Standards and government." But. they refused to 
adopt our Standards, and the Synod received them 
notwithstanding. These bodies, with another, were 
afterwards organized into the Synod of Geneva. 
How much Presbvterianism there is, in bodies who 



DOINGS OF 



1837. 2:1: 



are Congregational in government, and refuse to 
adopt our Standards, you can judge. And seeing 
that they had come in, in direct violation of the 
provision of the Assembly, in the case, it follows, as 
a necessary consequence, that they were not legally 
in our connection, and the act of the Assembly of 
1 837, simply declared that fact. 

Con, — But, as there were Presbyterians in those 
bodies, would it not have been better for the General 
Assembly to have adopted some plan to separate 
the Congregationalists, and retain the others? 

Min .-Such an arrangement would have been 
desirable, if it could have been accomplished. The 
course the Assembly took, was supposed to be the 
last resort. They were led to believe that it was 
the only course they could take, that would remedy 
the evil complained of, and save the church. In 
our last conversation, I gave you a view of the 
deeply aggrieved state of feeling that prevailed 
throughout the church, after the doings of the 
Assembly of 1836. Alarm for the safety of the 
church, was felt bv every lover of truth and order. 
A committee was appointed, consisting of men m 
different parts of the church, to correspond with 
each other, and with whomsoever they might think 
desirable and expedient, and to devise and recom- 
mend what they thought best to be done, from all 
the information they could collect. This committee 
recommended that a convention should meet in 
Philadelphia, previous to the meeting of the Assem- 
bly of 1837, composed of delegates from all the 
Presbyteries, and minorities of Presbyteries, who 
felt aggrieved by the action of the Assembly o1 
1836. This convention met accordingly, but still, 
were at a loss what to do, from the fact, that they 



S32 DOINGS OF 1837. 

could not tell what would be the character of the 
Assembly. I have been told by those who attended 
that convention, that it was the most deeply solemn 
of any meeting of the kind they had ever witnessed. 
Every one seemed to feel the solemn importance of 
the duties they were called upon to perform, and 
the bearing they would have upon the interests of 
the church, and the cause of Christ. Much prayer 
was mingled with their deliberations, and they 
seemed to cast themselves entirely upon the great 
Head of the church for direction. They drafted a 
memorial to the Assembly on several important 
points ; among which, was a strong and decided 
testimony against the errors which prevailed in 
different portions of the church. When the Assem- 
bly met, it was found that the friends of truth and 
order had the majority, and, consequently, they felt 
called upon, not only by the crisis to which the 
church had arrived, but also by the Providence of 
God, to enter into decisive measures for remedying 
the evils against w r hich we had struggled so many 
years. 

The first step was to abrogate the "Plan of Union" 
which had introduced such a strong foreign influence 
into the General Assembly. This point was carried 
by a majority of thirty. This, however, was a 
measure that, in itself, could only prevent the evil 
from increasing, but did nothing to remedy that 
which was already pressing us so heavily. A 
measure was then proposed and carried, to cite to 
the bar of the next Assembly, those inferior judica- 
tories in which error and disorder prevailed. This 
measure was carried by a majority of only six; 
from which it was apprehended that it would be 
attended with great difficulty, especially as the New 



DOINGS OF 1837. 233 

School men distinctly intimated, that the manner 
in which the Assembly proposed to proceed, was 
not constitutional, and that the requirement, that 
the cited Synods should not vote in the Assembly 
until their case was decided, would be treated as a 
nullity. 

Con, — I have understood that the New School 
men desired this course, and anxiously pleaded for 
it, contending that they were accused wrongfully 
of error and disorder, and wished an opportunity 
of clearing themselves before the Assembly; but, 
that the Old School part of the Assembly would 
not hear their anxious requests for a trial, but cast 
them out of the church without a hearing, 

Min* — I know such things have been said, but 
ihey are altogether foreign from the fact. Every 
New School man voted against the measure; their 
leading men argued strenuously against it, and 
when the point was carried by the small majority 
of six, they protested against it, and plainly intima- 
ted that it would not be regarded. It was found, 
therefore, that this plan would cause another year, 
or more, of strife and contest; and it was plain, 
that something else must be done, or increased dif- 
ficulty would be the consequence. A proposal w r as 
then made, for an amicable separation between the 
parties, leaving it to every person in the church to 
choose which side he pleased; and a committee of 
five on each side was appointed to adjust the 
terms upon which they should separate. The com- 
mittee, however, could not agree, especially, on 
two points. The Old School wished to have it 
done immediately, that strife might be ended, but 
the New School wished to wait another year. The 
New School wished the General Assembly to be 
16 



234 doisgs of 1S37, 

entirely dissolved,, and two new Assemblies to be 
organised out of the elements, but to this the Old 
School would not agree, as thereby the Assembly 

would endanger, and, perhaps, loose all their funded 
property, which had been entrusted to their care 
for pious uses. This having failed, the Assembly 
were under the necessity of devising something, 
else, or of leaving the church still in the midst of 
difficulty. Then followed the measure of declar- 
ing, that as a consequence of the abrogation of 
the ''Plan of Union," the Synods of the Western 
Reserve., Geneva, Utica, and Genessee, having 
come into the church under the operation of that 
plan, were not an integral portion of our church, 
This declaration, you will perceive, did not dissolve 
those Synods. They were left to the enjoyment 
of all their rights and privileges that they ever- 
possessed, except that of ruling in the General As- 
sembly. Churches, and church courts, were left as 
thev were, only they were no longer churches, and 
church courts, in connection icith us, 

Con, — The measure was perhaps necessary, 
though it seems severe. It seems to me, that it 
would have been better for the Assembly to have 
carried out its first resolution, to cite those Synods 
to answer for irregularity. 

Mm. — If that could have been accomplished, 1 
believe it would have been better, And, perhaps,. 
under all the circumstances, it would have been 
better for the Assembly to have carried it out. 
But, from the violent opposition that it met with, 
and the very small majority by which the resolu- 
tions were passed, they apprehended great difficulty 
as the result, and abandoned it. The other meas- 
ure, as you say, was severe. To declare a separate 



doings of 1837. 235 

lion from brethren and churches, with whom thev 
had been associated for years, seemed harsh. But. 
it was plain that those brethren asked too much. 
We had no more authority over them, than over the 
churches of England ; yet, they wished to have a 
voice in the Assembly, in prescribing what we 
should do. Had they left us to manage our con- 
cerns in our own way, we would still have been 
glad to have extended to them the right hand of 
fellowship. But, when we fou-nd them arrayed 
against what we thought our dearest rights, and 
the best interests of our church, and seemingly 
desirous of casting under their feet every thing 
that was excellent and dear in Presbyterianism, w 7 e 
had to say to them, u Brethren, this must not be: 
w r e prefer to manage our business in our own way; 
and though we love you, we love our church better, 
and rather than part with our principles, which are 
her glory, we must part with you." 

Such was the action of the Assembly of 1837. 
of which you have heard so much. It was this 
act, which the Assembly deemed necessary for 
self-preservation, that has been stigmatized as 
worse than the worst doings of the Popish Inquisi- 
tion. Nay, the Assembly has been denounced as 
worse than Cain, and even worse than the crucifiers 
of the Son of God. 

Con. — The abrogation of the " Plan of Union," 
and the consequent dissolution of the connection of 
Congregationalists with the Presbyterian Church, 1 
should think could not have been censured; but, I 
suppose, the fact that there were many Presbyte- 
rians in those Synods, made the action of the 
Assembly appear in a worse light. 

Miiu — That was a difficulty which the Assembly 



236 DOINGS OF 1837. 

felt, and consequently, in immediate connection with 
the resolutions, by which the Assembly declared our 
connection with the Synods dissolved, they passed 
the following: Resolved, 

•'3. That the General Assembly has no intention, 
by these resolutions, to affect in any way, the min- 
isterial standing of any member of either of said 
Synods ; nor to disturb the pastoral relation in any 
church; nor to interfere with the duties or relations 
of private christians in their respective congrega- 
tions; but only to declare and determine according 
to the truth and necessity of the case, and by virtue 
of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, 
the relation of all said Synods, and all their con- 
stituent parts, to this body, and to the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States. 

"4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be 
several churches and ministers, if not one or two 
Presbyteries, now in connection with one or more of 
said Synods, which are strictly Presbyterian in doc- 
trine and order; be it, therefore, further resolved, 
that all such churches and ministers as wish to 
unite w r ith us, are hereby directed to apply for 
admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our 
connection, which are most convenient to their res- 
pective locations; and that any such Presbytery as 
aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine 
and order, and now in connection with either of 
said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are 
hereby directed to make application, with a full 
statement of their cases, to the next General As- 
sembly, which will take proper order thereon." 

This was surely enough for any one who wished 
to be united with us in preference to Congregation- 
alists. And had all Presbyterians followed the 



THE DIVISION. 237 

direction of the Assembly, the difficulty would have 
been healed, and the church left entire, without 
distraction or division. But, as this was not done, 
except in a few instances, the brethren in those 
Synods, who, called themselves Presbyterians, seem- 
ing to prefer their connection with Congregational- 
ists, and many in different parts of the church 
sympathizing with them, and uniting with them in 
denouncing and opposing the acts of the Assembly, 
the foundation was thus laid, for the division of 
the church which now exists. The division, it is 
true, had existed in fact, for years, but now it 
seemed as if it must be made in form, It was 
.consummated in 183S, the occurrences of which 
will occupy our attention at some future time. 



DIALOGUE V 



THE DIVISION. 



Convert. — I have heard it supposed, and indeed 
asserted, that one ground of the action of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of 1837, in dissolving connection 
with the four Synods, was opposition to Congre- 
gationalism; but, I did not understand you as 
intimating that such was the case. 

Minister. — It was not in opposition to Congre- 
gationalism in itself, but as it took the name of 
Presbyterianism, while it was so in nothing else- 



23S 



THE DIVISION. 



It was Congregationalism coming into our church 
courts under another name, and endeavoring to 
rule Presbyterians, itself being independent of any 
authority. Had the "Plan of Union" never been 
entered into and acted upon, Congregationalists 
and Presbyterians would now have been much 
nearer together than they are. 

Con. — The imputation of harshness and tyranny, 
to which the doings of the Assembly would at first 
view afford some ground, arise, I am led to believe, 
more from the circumstances of the case, than the 
nature of the acts, There is a prejudice in the 
community generally, against any thing that seems 
to be in opposition to union among christians of 
different denominations. And in this case, a union 
having existed so long, the dissolution of it wears 
a harsh and exclusive aspect, to those who do 
not consider the circumstances under which it was 
done. 

Min. — Though much has been said and done to 
render the doings of the Assembly odious in the 
eyes of the community, which, I believe, has 
been effected to some extent, yet, when any one 
considers the subject calmly, he will see the rea- 
sonableness of the Assembly wishing to manage 
her own concerns. The controversy has been 
denounced as a "contest for power;" but those 
who speak of it in this manner, do not consider 
in what light they are placing themselves. Foi\ 
if it be true, it was a contest for power in the 
Presbyterian Church by those who were not under 
her authority, yet wished to rule her church courts. 
If an adopted child should attempt to interfere in 
the government of the family, telling the father 
that his family discipline was too strict, while he } 



THE DIVISION. 230 

himself, claimed to be independent of it, he might 
occasion difficulty, and gain some members of the 
family over to his views. Bat, who could blame 
the father for telling him, that he wished to govern 
his family in his own way? and, that if he could 
remain and submit to his authority, he would be 
willing still to allow him the station of a child; but 
if he continued thus to interfere with his rightful 
authority, and thus cause difficulty and alienation 
in his family, he must leave 1 If, under such cir- 
cumstances, he should denounce the father as con- 
tending with him for power and authority in the 
family, in what light would it place himself/ Yet, 
this is a case precisely analagous to that in which 
the General Assembly stood. The contest for 
power was altogether on the side of those who had 
no right to claim it. 

Con. — But, as there were Presbyterians among 
those who wished the General Assembly, and the 
church, to conform to their views, they had a right 
to be heard ; and their rights in the church were 
not forfeited by the fact, that they thought and 
acted with Congregationalists. It is this fact, I 
think, that gives the harshest aspect to the acts of 
the Assembly. 

Min. — That those Presbyterians thought and 
acted with Congregationalists did not, it is true, in- 
validate their rights in the church, but, it was judged 
by the Assembly, that though they were Presbyte- 
rians, they were not legally in connection with us, 
and consequently, that until they took the neces- 
sary steps to become legally connected with us, 
they had no rights in the church. And though in 
aimes of peace the Assembly might, and would 
aave overlooked those informalities still, as they 



240 



THE DIVISION. 



had done for many years ; yet, when difficulties 
arose, the church had to look to its own safety, and 
act accordingly. 

Suppose Congress, when it made arrangements 
for annexing Louisiana to the United States, should 
have found the citizens almost entirely in favor of 
the government of France, and refusing absolutely 
to come under ours; yet, as it was of great import- 
ance that we should have that territory, Congress 
should permit them to remain citizens of the French 
government though called Americans, and in name 
connected with us. They would be entirely inde- 
pendent of our government, and in fact foreigners. 
Now, if under these circumstances Congress should 
permit them to elect and send men to sit and vote 
with them, and have an equal voice in transacting 
the concerns of the nation, it would seem a strange 
procedure. And though such a measure might 
be tolerated in the beginning, as not of sufficient 
magnitude to produce any serious consequences* 
yet, if it were permitted to grow, it might 
become intolerable. If the principle which at first 
regarded only Louisiana, was made to embrace 
Texas, St. Domingo, &c, we would have a num- 
ber of foreigners in Congress, that would create a 
difficulty. They might begin to tell us that our 
system of government was too purely republican, 
&c, and having gained some of our own citizens 
over to their views, they would occasion great 
difficulty, and create alarm for the safety of the 
government. Being permitted too, to have a voice 
in our courts of justice, if they should impede them 
in the administration of law, and screen offenders, 
it w r ould not be surprising if measures should be 
taken to dissolve this connection. Who, in the 



THE DIVISION. 241 

name of common sense, would blame our Congress 
for telling them, we can submit to this misrule no 
longer? If you will come under our laws and abide 
by them, we will receive you as constituent parts 
of our government; but if not, we cannot have 
you any longer as foreigners in our courts and leg- 
islatures, making and administering laws for us, 
which you do not acknowledge. You never have 
been constitutionally connected with us, and are 
not, in fact, integral parts of our government. 
Now, suppose Congress, in the exercise of its 
authority in making this declaration, should be met 
with the plea, that there were many true citizens 
scattered throughout those territories, who wished 
to be under our government, and submit to its 
laws, what would they do in the case? Surely the 
most just and equitable course would be, to pass an 
act giving direction how all such persons might 
become constitutionally connected with us. And 
what man, or community of men, of common sense, 
would count it oppressive, to be required to take 
the necessary steps to secure their citizenship 7 
How absurd it would be for those who called 
themselves good citizens to become offended, and 
uniting with the others, raise the cry of tyranny 
and oppression against Congress, declaring that. 
they were all condemned as criminals and beheaded 7 
This strikes you, I perceive, as ludicrous, but such 
a course would be just as reasonable as the cry that 
is raised against the General Assembly, for "cut- 
ting off, excinding, condemning without trial," &c, 
when there was no excision or condemnation oi* 
any one, but simply a declaration of the fact, that 
those Synods were not legally in our connection. 
But, the illustration will serve us farther. Sup- 



242 THE DIVISION. 

pose those who were declared to be no part of our 
government should refuse to submit to the decision 
of Congress, and should elect men as usual, who 
should come up to Congress the next year, demand- 
ing their seats; and when refused, should, with 
tumult and confusion, elect a Speaker of their own, 
and go to some other house, pretending to transact 
the business of our government — claiming to be 
the true Congress of the United States ! Such a 
proceeding would be precisely analagous to the 
action and character of the New School Assembly 
of 1838. 

Con. — Upon what did they especially base the 
legality of their claim to be the true Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church? 

Min. — They declared the act of the Assembly 
of 1837 unconstitutional, and therefore null and 
void; and alleged that the General Assembly could 
not be legally organized, if any of the delegates 
lawfully entitled to seats should be refused. Indeed, 
they went so far as to say, that the Assembly, after 
passing the acts dissolving connection with the 
four Synods, w r as no longer a body possessing any 
authority, and none of its acts were binding. But, 
this they afterwards contradicted by their own 
actions, and found it best to acknowledge the legal- 
ity of the Assembly up until the time their own w r as 
organized. For, if, as they contended, the Assem- 
bly had destroyed itself by its acts, it had no power 
to call another; but they appeared before the next 
Assembly, acknowledging its legality, and claiming 
their seats; and when refused, they proceeded to 
make what they called a legal organization, in the 
midst of the proceedings of the Assembly. 

Con. — It must have been a scene of confusion 



THE DIVISION. 243 

indeed. It would certainly have appeared better 
for them to have quietly organized in some separate 
place. 

Min. — That did not suit their views. They 
were desirous to organize in such a way that they 
could claim to be the true Assembly, in the eyes of 
the civil law. The General Assembly has a Board 
of Trustees, who are a corporate body, to whose 
care all its funded property is entrusted. Their 
charter requires that they must be elected by the 
General Assembly, organized according to the pro- 
visions of our Constitution. An organization made 
in a different place from that in which the Assem- 
bly was directed to meet, could have no claims to 
be the true Assembly. They committed themselves 
to the direction of legal counsel, and acted accord- 
ingly. It may seem strange to you, that they fol- 
lowed the advice and direction of civil jurists, as to 
what would be Presbyterianism ; but such was the 
fact. They had no thought of a separate organi- 
zation; at least such a measure was repudiated by 
their public journals, until a young lawyer of New 
York, published a pamphlet, giving his views of 
what would be necessary to secure a constitu- 
tional organization of the Assembly. This changed 
the whole aspect of their intentions, and deter- 
mined them to organize separately. But, as the 
author of the pamphlet had based his views upon 
mistaken notions of some of the most common 
principles of Presbyterianism, with which it could 
hardly be expected he could be thoroughly 
acquainted, in following his directions they were 
led astray from the very point they wished to 
gain. 

Con. — In what particular points did they fail 



244 THE DIVISION. 

in making a constitutional organization of their 
Assembly/ 

Min. — In the first place, they took it as an indis- 
putable point, that as their lawyer had told them, 
the Assembly could not be constitutionally organ- 
ized if delegates from the four Synods were denied 
a seat. This w^as their starting point. For, if the 
organization of the Old School Assembly without 
those delegates w r as constitutional, then, no other 
could be. They were mistaken then, as to the first 
point; but even had they been correct in this, they 
mistook the second. If it were true that the As- 
sembly vitiated its organization by refusing those 
delegates a seat, that refusal must first take place. 
But they did not w T ait for this. Those delegates had 
handed their commissions to the Clerks, and asked 
to be enrolled. The Clerks had refused to do so, 
telling them they might present them to the Assem- 
bly. They presented them to the Assembly before 
it was fully organized, and a motion was made that 
they be enrolled, before the house was prepared to 
vote on any motion. The Moderator decided that 
the motion was out of order, at that time, as the 
house was not prepared to entertain it, the roll not 
being fully made out, or the house organized. The 
mover appealed from the decision of the Modera- 
tor to the house. But, he decided the appeal to be 
out of order, for there w r as yet no house to appeal 
to. This they took as the refusal upon which they 
were to build their new organization, and com- 
menced accordingly. But, I need not follow par- 
ticularly the several steps of this strange procedure, 
almost every one of which was an outrage upon 
order. You are, no doubt, familiar with it; and if 
not, you will find it at large in the report of the 



THE DIVISION, 245 

law suit into which our New School brethren 
dragged us, to their own detriment. 

Con. — I have heard much of the law suit, but 
know little of its merits on either side, and thought 
it much to be regretted, that matters of controversy 
between the two parties, could not have been am- 
icably settled without an appeal to the civil law. 

Min. — It might have been done, had they taken 
that course. We have always been ready to give 
them every thing they can justly claim. In 1837, 
when the committee met to devise measures 
for an amicable separation, they agreed on what 
would be an equitable division of the funded prop- 
erty. Had the same terms been proposed in 1838 9 
the Old School Assembly would have acceded to 
them. Even in 1839, after the law suit was decided 
in our favor, the Assembly passed resolutions expres- 
sive of their willingness to divide the funded property 
upon the same terms. Had our New School breth- 
ren made any proposition for an amicable adjustment 
of difficulties, it would have been done, and each par- 
ty would have had their own, and nothing more. But, 
when the young lawyer of New York told them, 
that by taking a certain course, they could not only 
get their own, but the whole, they determined to 
make the attempt. Thus, the New School part of 
the church, a large portion of whom were Congre- 
gationalists, and had never acknowledged her 
authority, and most of the rest having departed 
to a greater or less extent from her doctrine and 
order, now set themselves up as being the only 
true Presbyterian Church, claiming her name, 
charter, rights, theological seminaries, and all her 
funded property, as of right belonging to them, 
and to none others. They, too, being in the 



246 



THE DIVISION. 



minority, entered upon a course, in which, if the}" had 
proved successful, they would have deprived the 
majority, nine-tenths of whom were Presbyterians 
by birth and education, of all right and standing 
in their own church. 

Con.— In what way was this exclusive claim set 
up, and prosecuted with any prospect of success:' 

Min. — -They declared themselves to he the only 
true General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States, and elected six Trustees, who 
claimed their seats in the Board. This was of course 
ad. They then entered suit against our Trus- 
tees. This suit, of course, involved the question of 
who had a right to elect according to our Constitu- 
tion. Had they been successful in being declarer 
by the court the true General Assembly, the nexi 
year they would have elected six more, and so on 
until they would have had the whole Board, and 
then every thing would have been in their hands. 
And though it was exceedingly painful for our 
Church, through her officers, thus to be dragge 
before the civil courts, it turned out greatly to our 
advantage, and their detriment. For, though in the 
lower court, through a strange perversion of law by 
the Judge, they obtained a verdict of the jury in 
their favor, it was carried to the Supreme Court, 
who decided the whole case, clearly and satisfacto- 
rily in our favor. It operated thus greatly to our 
advantage, as it gave us a decision of the bighesl 
court of Pennsylvania, procured through theirinsti i - 
mentality. It operated in the same way to 
disadvantage, so far as the influence of sv 
decision went. They would have succeeded better 
in laying their claims before the community at large. 
had no such decision been procured. They v 



THE DIVISION. 247 

also have escaped the odium of dragging their 
brethren before a civil court. 

But, this was not the worst feature of the case. 
There were other suits entered, the prosecution of 
which, depended upon the success of tins one, which 
was intended to lead the way. Rev. Miles P. 
Squier, Henry Brown, and Rev. Philip C. Hay- 
severally sued Dr. Elliott, Dr. J. McDowell, Dr, 
Krebs, Dr. Plumer, and Dr. Breckinridge, for 
trespass, in voting to deprive them of their seats in 
the Assembly, and in other particulars. In these 
suits, the offence charged, was votes given in a 
church court. The only penalty a court could in- 
flict in the case, would be fine and imprisonment. 
These brethren, then, made application to the civil 
court, to have Dr. Elliott and others, fined and 
imprisoned, for acting and voting according to their 
conscience, in an ecclesiastical judicatory! This, to 
say the least, was an abandonment of some of the 
most important principles of religious liberty; for 
if the principle upon which these suits were founded, 
be correct, and a minister of the Gospel may be 
imprisoned, or fined, or both, for voting according 
to his conscience in a church court, then, all our 
church discipline is subject to the review of civil 
courts, and it would be for them to decide what 
should be the standard of morality, and orthodoxy 
in the christian church. Yet, this was done by those 
w r ho, at the same time, were denouncing the acts 
of the General Assembly, as worse than Popish 
persecution. How near they approached to perse- 
cution, in asking the civil authority to imprison their 
brethren, you can judge. 

Con. — But were these suits actually prosecuted? 

Mm. — They were actually entered for prosecution, 



*i4S THE DIVISION. 

and summons were actually served on these vener- 
able men, to appear and answer the charges. But 9 
when the Supreme Court decided the case so fully 
on the first trial, these suits were not prosecuted 
any tarther. What would have been done if they 
had been successful in the first suit, we do not know* 
Charity, however, would lead us to hope, that they 
would have seen their error, and withdrawn the 
suits. 

Con. — It is to be regretted that such things should 
occur. It would have been much better on all 
hands, had they separated quietly, since separation 
was necessary, and endeavored to settle difficulties 
amicably. 

But, there is another point about which I am at 
some loss. When the General Assembly was divi- 
ded, why was it necessary that the whole church 
should divide ? Could not Synods, Presbyteries, and 
Congregations, have remained united still? 

Min. — The General Assembly is the bond of 
union to the whole church. Congregations act inde- 
pendently of each other, except as they meet by 
their delegates in Presbytery, w r hose acts bind all. 
Presbyteries act independently of each other, except 
as they meet in Synods; Synods, again, act inde- 
pendently of each other, except as they meet 
through the delegates from their Prebyteries in the 
General Assembly. This body being the depository 
and expounder of the Constitution, and highest in 
authority, is thus the bond of union. Like the 
keystone of a vast pyramidal arch, it binds and 
influences the whole. Then, if the General Assem- 
bly be divided, it necessarily runs to the bottom. 
Synods must acknowledge some General Assembly, 
or become independent. If there be two Assemblies, 



THE DIVISION. % 2i P J 

each claiming to be the true one, the question will 
come up, which shall we acknowledge? And if 
there be difference of opinion on the point, they 
must divide. So of Presbyteries and churches. 
The result is inevitable. And, our New School 
brethren should have looked well to the result, 
before they organized their New Assembly, know- 
ing as they did, the effect it must have on the 
church. There are many churches, it is true, on 
both sides, in which there are minorities, who 
would prefer a different connection; but who, for 
other reasons, do not wish to separate from their 
brethren. This is well, so far as it can be done 
without compromising any important principle. In 
most churches, however, the Old School members 
felt so aggrieved with the course of the other party, 
that they could not conscientiously acknowledge 
their jurisdiction in any way, or remain in their 
connection. And there were also many, who 
were, no doubt, as conscientious on the other side. 
Where this was the case, division was a necessary 
result. This necessity, however, arose from the 
division of the Assembly. Though difference of 
opinion prevailed, there were but few places where 
it was so great as to prevent union in churches, 
while they were all under the same church courts. 
But, when the General Assembly, and consequently 
the lower courts divided, to prevent division in 
churches was impossible. 

Con. — So far as your observation has extended, 
how does the division seem to affect the church, 
and the cause of religion in general? 

Min. — For a time, during the process of division, 
it was painful in the extreme, and the cause of reli- 
gion suffered, as well as Presbyterianism. Some 
17 



250 THE DIVISION. 

to avoid strife, sought the communion of other 
churches. Those cases, however, were few. More 
were prevented by the existing state of things, 
from entering our church, who otherwise would 
have united with us. But, since the churches have 
become settled, our ministers and members seem to 
have turned their efforts, more than ever, to build- 
ing up the kingdom of Christ. Our churches and 
church courts are united and harmonious, and a 
heavenly peace sheds its influence upon all our 
meetings. Within the last three years, our church 
has increased more in proportion to her numbers, 
than in any former period of her history, and is 
doing more for the cause of Christ in the world, 
than she has ever done. The same is true, no 
doubt, to some extent at least, of the Xew School 
body, though their increase has not been so great 
in proportion, as ours. From their published sta- 
tistics we find, that their increase for three years 
does not much exceed that of ours for the last year, 
And we can say with gratitude to our blessed Mas- 
ter, that he has u increased our greatness, and 
comforted us on every side/' And, I can say for 
myself, that the more I study the pure doctrines 
and excellent scriptural order of our church, and 
look at her history, and see what God has done for 
her, the more I love her. I cannot but view her 
as the brightest and most lovely part of the great 
sacramental host of God upon earth. Under her 
banner, while spending and being spent in the 
service of her Great Head, I can still cheerfully say; 

"For her my tra-s shall fall, 
For her my prayers ascend, 
To her my cares and toils be given. 
Till toils and cares shall end/ r 



THE DIVISION. 251 

Con. — My first decided preference for your 
church, commenced with my change of views on 
the subject of religion, and I can cheerfully say, 
that the study of her doctrines and her govern- 
ment, has not lessened that feeling of ardent attach- 
ment, which I hope will not only remain and 
increase during life, but will be a source of enjoy- 
ment and delightful recollection forever in the 
church above, where all will be one. 

Min. — I have now given you, as well as I can, 
a hasty sketch of the doctrines of our church 
which are the most controverted, and also of the 
leading principles of her government, with a few 
facts of her recent history. The circumstances 
w^ould only permit a brief outline of the most 
important points of each. If I have relieved your 
mind of any difficulties under which you have 
labored, as to the reasonableness and scriptural 
warrant of her doctrines and government, and the 
constitutionality of her present standing, in com- 
parison w r ith others, my object is gained, and I am 
fully repaid for the occasional hours we have spent, 
amid the press of my numerous avocations. And 
if, upon examination, you find what I have said is 
in accordance with facts, reason, and Scripture, 
you can appreciate it accordingly. 

Con. — I have been very much interested, and I 
hope edified and instructed, and shall ever feel 
gratified for your kind attentions, by which I hope 
I shall be profited in after life. 



RECOMMEN D ATIONS. 

I can candidly recommend the work, entitled, " The Bible, 
Confession of Faith, and Common Sense," to the members of the 
Presbyterian Church, and those who love truth in doctrine and 
order, as worthy of careful perusal. This work is written in a plain 
and familiar manner; and while it gives correct views of truth and 
the arguments by which it is maintained against opposing error and 
corruption, its practical tendency is to promote vital piety. I hope 
it will obtain an extensive circulation, and be the means of doing 
much good. JAMES HOGE. 

Columbus, O., March 4, 1844. 

Messrs. Dunlap & Smith: 

Dear Brethren — Your proposal to publish "A Dialogue between a 
Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert," in the form of a book, 
meets my entire approbation. From various causes, I have not read 
the numbers regularly. I have read enough of them, however, to 
satisfy me of the propriety of giving them to the public in a more 
permanent form than that in which they have heretofore been 
issued. My opinion of the ability with which they are written 
will appear, when I inform you, that before I knew who was their 
author, I had attributed them to one of the ablest and best known 
polemical writers in the Western Presbyterian Church. Forming 
my judgment of the whole, from the portions I have read, I can 
cheerfully recommend the work to the christian community, and 
especially to the members of the Presbyterian Church, as deserving 
of their liberal patronage. D. ELLIOTT. 

Allegheny City, Pa., Feb. 15th, 1844, 

Rev. and Dear Brethren — I am pleased to hear that you are about 
to publish, in a volume, the interesting and valuable Dialogues 
which have appeared in the "Presbyterian of the West." I think 
them well adapted to be useful, and hope they will have an exten- 
sive circulation. To those who desire to obtain correct views 
concerning the doctrines of the Bible, and other important 
matters connected with the subject of religion, and especially, the 
Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Presl yterian 
Church, I recommend this proposed volume, as being worthy of a 
candid and careful perusal. 

I am, very respectfully, yours, 

New Albany, Ind. JAMES WOOD. 



Mf.s c iis. Dubxai cc ^xith: 

Rrdkn — Having read, in the '"Presbyterian of the West," 

m s: of the numbers of " A Dialogue be: ween a Presbyterian M 

a:iJ a Young Convert." entitled "The ifesaon of 

Faith, and Common Sense," I nave long felt desirous that the 

. and given to the public in a more 
manent and abiding form. It is with hi easure, there! 

a contemplate issuing an edition of the work 
in a small, neat volume. I deem it valuable no: only lor its clear 

sat doctrines of divine 
truth. -.:re(notre- the 

mass of readers) of the . .. these doctrines have 

been assailed by their enc 

in have chosen to discuss the leading: doe- 

and the principles of our Form of 

srnment, will not fail to interest the wre learned class :: 

: -. m lile it will secure the :i (hose less informed 

npoD these su': : f::s. Believing that it will tend to diffuse a more 

prehension of the truth as held by the Presbyterian 

should be heartily glad tc see the little book in every 

family in ou: I 

With, affectionate regard, 

Your brother in the £C ; 

~ I. N. CANDEE. 
Springfield, 0.. March S. 1844, 

To the Editors or the Presbyterian or the West : 

Dear Breih ■-; \ — I am z.'xl to hear that the series of Dialogues 
:i..~ecn. a u Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert." which 
has i valuable paper, is about to be published in 

: form, for more general circulation. I have read these Dialogues 
sst and umning -. . s .-faction, and regard them as 
an no " clear and able vindication of the dig Tines 

of the Presbyterian Church, and of its admirable system of eccle- 
siastical polity. ng which adds greatly to their value, 

in :.. satisfactory explanation they give of the difier- 

and 
of the causes which led to the separation bf and New 

School I terians. Such an explanation was reeded and will 

unq I Ko great good. I am free to say. I should rejoice to 

i copy of these D;aiogu-s in every family connected with my 
., and to hear that tiiey are widely circulated m 
every community. 

Yours truly, 

PHINEAS D. GURLEY. I 

. huL 
Indianapolis, February 20, 1844. 



Brethren Dunlap and Smith — In reference to your proposed 
publication/ I am prepared to say, that I can most cordially recom- 
mend it to the attenotin of the public. The plainness and famil- 
iarity of the style recommends it to common readers, while its 
dialogue fo;m, awakens attention and maintains the interest. The 
design also, of reducing some of the difficult and most frequently 
controverted doctrines of theology to the test of common sense, 
is a pood one. I have for a length of time been of opinion, that 
the distinguishing features of the Calvinistic churches need only to 
be fairly proposed, and correctly understood, to obtain for them a 
favorable verdict in the judgment of the common mind. Every 
man is conscious of laying a plan — of designing before he begins 
the execution — and this common sense principle is all that the 
doctrine of the divine purpose attributes to God, as the intelligent 
creator and ruler of the Universe. Common sense, therefore, when 
it understands what is doing, cannot attribute less of intelligence to 
God, than it claims for itself. The articles also on the govern- 
ment of the church, I consider as tending to throw light on that 
subject. The peculiarities of the Presbyterian Church government, 
are ronly such as distinguish the principle of representation, as 
opposed on the one hand to monarchy, and on the other to 
anarchy. The analogy between it and the republican institutions 
in the ^tate, you have shown to the apprehension of the common 
mind- 
Desiring that your labor may be abundantly blessed, I remain, 
Yours in the gospel, 

H. HERVEY. 
Martinsburg, March 4th, 1844. 

Dear Brethren — I am pleased to learn that you intend to publish 
the Dia ogues in a separate volume, and I only express the opin- 
ion of all classes who have read them, and whom I have beard 
say any thing on the subject, when I say, that the work in such 
form, is calculated to be very useful; particularly in relation to the 
doctrine of Election, and others of the more abstruse doctiines of 
the Confession of Faith. I have seen nothing on the distinguish- 
ing peculiarities of our Church, better calculated to enlighten and 
convince common readers. The style is plain, and the illustrations 
are such as to present the evidence with an almost irresistible force. 
Some who have labored under great darkness and doubt, on the 
subject of divine decrees and election, have found much relief from 
reading the numbers as they appeared in the "Presbyterian of the 
West," and many will, no doubt, experience similar advantage, by 
having the work furnished them in the manner proposed. Many 
are desirous to see the book. I hope it will be published, and, what 
is more, that it will be extensively patronized and read. 

D. MONFORT. 

Franklin, Ind., Feb. 14, 1844. 



1 have read with interest, attention and profit, in the "Presbyterian 
of the West," a series of numbers, entitled, "A Dialogue between 
a Presbyterian Minister and a Young Convert ;" and understanding 
I hat the Editors of that excellent paper (the Rev. Messrs. Dunlap 
and ^mith) intend to publish those numbers in a volume, for the 
benefit of the public, I, with great pleasure, do most sincerely rec- 
ommend this valuable work to all who love the great doctrines of 
^race as revealed in the word of God, as a plain, clear, and prac- 
tical exhibition of truth, peculiarly adapted to the wants of those 
who are earnestly inquiring for the way of salvation. I am per- 
suaded, that no individual will read this volume with an honest 
and prayerful heart, without being instructed and comforted ; and 
"my heart's desire and prayer to God" is, that it may be extensively 
circulated and read. 

N. H. HALL, Pastor of the 
First Presbyterian churchy Lexington, Ky. 

Lexington, Ky., March 5th, 1844. 

A number of other testimonials have been received, from both 
ministers and laymen, as to the character and utility of the woik, 
but these are deemed sufficient. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 



